Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LONDON TRANSPORT BILL

HULL TIDAL SURGE BARRIER BILL

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL (By Order)

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [6th March], That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Debate to be resumed upon Tuesday next at Seven o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Redundancies (Bolsover)

Mr. Skinner: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what redundancies have been notified that are due to take place in the Westhouses area of the Bolsover constituency in the first week of October 1973.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Dudley Smith): None, Sir. I understand, however, that British Rail is considering closing the West-houses motive power depot. Staff have been notified informally, but as formal joint consultation has not yet commenced any speculation about redundancies would be premature at this stage.

Mr. Skinner: I hope that they remain premature right through until after 1st

October. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this is an area which has been decimated by temporary closures over the past eight years and that the Blackwell Rural District Council has been painstaking in its efforts to introduce new industries into the area, to service which the depot will be needed? Will the hon. Gentleman consult the East Midlands Planning Council and his right hon. Friends concerned to see to it that this closure is averted?

Mr. Smith: I should like to look at what the hon. Gentleman says. He probably knows that these are not direct matters for me. I emphasise that no final decisison has yet been made to close the depot. But with the continuing buildup of new industry in the area and the increase in notified vacancies, the prospects for alternative employment are reasonable if it should close.

Mr. Jessel: Is it not one of the best ways of promoting employment for the area concerned to have a reputation for good labour relations and a lack of militancy? Might it not be the case that the activities of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and the Clay Cross Council are detrimental in that respect?

Mr. Skinner: The hon. Gentleman should get his geography right. It is not in my constituency.

Mr. Smith: Good labour relations are always helpful to any district.

Mr. Skinner: Silly idiot.

Mr. Concannon: To answer the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel), is the Under-Secretary aware that it is well to point out that when local government elections are held in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) there is an 80 per cent. turn-out? A lot of us would like to be able to say the same.

Mr. Smith: That hardly arises on this Question.

Older Workers

Miss Fookes: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will take steps to encourage the employment of men in the age group 55 to 65 years.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. R. Chichester-Clark): The current modernisation and extension of the employment and training services provided by my Department should be of benefit to older workers, as to others; the same is true of the Government's measures to expand the economy and stimulate employment generally.
In particular, in the assisted areas grants are available to employers who are prepared to retrain and employ unemployed workers of 45 years of age and over.

Miss Fookes: Is my hon. Friend aware that there are many men and women of mature age outside the assisted areas who feel that they have been thrown on the scrap-heap simply because employers seem to have an unhealthy preoccupation with age?

Mr. Chichester-Clark: Successive Governments have taken the view that the interests of older workers are best served by encouraging employers to consider them on their merits rather than by protective legislation. It is encouraging that there has been a fall in this category of unemployment in the past 12 months.

Mr. James Lamond: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many local authorities have superannuation schemes with upper age limits of 50 or 51? Is there anything that he can do to encourage them to take into their employment men over that age?

Mr. Chichester-Clark: That is not a matter for my Department. However, I am certain that what the hon. Gentleman has said will be noted.

North Sea Oil

Mr. Douglas: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on his estimate of the effect on unemployment on rigs and drilling platforms in the North Sea of the proposed tax changes.

Mr. Eadie: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what co-operation exists between his Department and the Department of Trade and Industry in relation to the monitoring of jobs that are likely to arise as the result of the development of projects attached to North Sea oil.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Maurice Macmillan): The proposed tax changes are unlikely to have any significant effect on the level of employment on rigs and drilling platforms. My Department and the Department of Trade and Industry are represented on the North Sea Oil Committee of the Scottish Economic Planning Board which co-ordinates information about all aspects of North Sea oil developments.

Mr. Douglas: In the co-ordination of activity, will the Minister pay regard to the fact that many of the highly skilled technologists on these rigs come from outside the United Kingdom? What steps has his Department taken to ensure that the companies employing the technologists recruit United Kingdom workers and at the same time ensure that they pay taxes in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Macmillan: It is not possible to ensure that people who are not resident in the United Kingdom, whether they are British or non-British subjects, pay tax in the United Kingdom. As to the skills developing on the rigs and in the ancillary work connected with them, more and more British residents will be employed in these jobs. The number of jobs which these developers are providing in Scotland is increasing rapidly.

Mr. Costain: Has my right hon. Friend any record of the number of jobs that this new industry has produced, and what are the prospects for the future?

Mr. Macmillan: We must remember that so far this work is purely exploratory. There is no oil yet flowing from the North Sea. A total of 3,600 development and exploration jobs has so far been created, including jobs on rigs. Projects which are firm and which have been announced are expected to produce another 8,600 jobs over the next four years, and there will be more projects which are still under consideration.

Mr. Eadie: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a need to update information about North Sea oil jobs available now—not jobs projected for the future? Is he further aware of the great anxiety in Scotland about the loss of jobs in the older-established energy industries? The rate of loss of jobs is greater
 


than the gain in new jobs. Will the Minister tell us about jobs that are coming to the fore now?

Mr. Macmillan: I have just done so. The situation is changing rapidly. On 21st February I said that there were 3,000 jobs currently created and there would be about 8,500 over the next four years. The present figures are about 700 higher, and that gives an indication of the speed with which the situation is developing and how many more jobs are being created. We must remember the great investment that has been made in the coal mining industry to preserve jobs in the older energy industries.

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: As much of the work on the oil rigs is highly skilled, what stimulus is my right hon. Friend giving to encourage the training of British nationals in this work?

Mr. Macmillan: Firms engaged in North Sea oil activities benefit from training grants to expanding firms in assisted areas, which are £15 per man and £12 per woman per week.

Disabled Persons

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest figure for unemployment among the registered disabled in Scotland; what was the comparable figure in each of the previous three years; and what progress has been made towards ensuring that firms comply with the law in the employment of such persons.

Mr. Dudley Smith: On 12th February there were 9,738 registered disabled people unemployed in Scotland. This compares with 11,264 in February 1972, 9,724 in February 1971 and 8,640 in February 1970. My Department continues to take all reasonable measures to ensure that employers fulfil their statutory obligations.

Mr. Hamilton: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that these figures are far too high? What is the figure expressed as a percentage compared with the percentage of able-bodied people who are unemployed? Will he ask each firm that is not complying with the law to give specific reasons why it should not conform?

Mr. Smith: Yes, Sir, the figure is too high but it has improved. The percentage total of unemployment among registered disabled persons is 13·4 per cent. We are reviewing all our specialised services for the disabled, and I am glad to announce that we shall shortly publish a consultative document on the quota scheme which goes into the question how much employers should be pressurised or whether we should adhere to the previous method of acting by persuasion. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will let us have his views when he has read the consultative document.

Mr. Marten: Apart from the review of specialised services, which is much appreciated, is there not almost a failure to advertise the need for firms to take up the quota of 3 per cent. registered disabled? Would not such advertisement bring mounting pressure from the public on firms to do the right thing?

Mr. Smith: Yes, Sir, there is something in that, but because of the extra efforts made by my Department in the last two years more and more employers are becoming aware of their obligations. This whole issue is dealt with in the consultative document and hon. Members on both sides of the House will find it fascinating reading.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he is satisfied that there are adequate employment facilities for the disabled in the Southampton area.

Mr. Dudley Smith: I am glad to say that the employment position for the disabled people in the area has improved significantly over the last year and that the number of unemployed registered disabled people has fallen from 509 in March 1972 to 451 on 12th March 1973. There is of course room for further improvement and my Department will continue to make all possible efforts to place those affected in suitable work.

Mr. Mitchell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I am receiving an increasing number of letters from disabled people in the Southampton area complaining that they are finding great difficulty in obtaining employment? Is he satisfied that firms in the area are taking up their full quota of disabled people?

Mr. Smith: At the last count 33·9 per cent. of employers in the area with a quota obligation were fulfilling it. That compares unfavourably with the national figure of 42·2 per cent. I inquired whether there were any special reasons, and I understand that there are not. We do all we can. I mentioned in reply to an earlier question, before the hon. Member entered the Chamber, that we are considering this matter. We will publish a consultative document about the quota system. I hope that that will bring about improvements when a final decision is made.

Mr. S. James A. Hill: Is my hon. Friend aware that in the survey carried out by the Department of Health and Social Security the percentage of disabled in the South West was the highest in the country? Can he say whether there is any expansion in the vocational training facilities in my area?

Mr. Smith: Yes, I am aware of the figures that my hon. Friend quotes. Vocational training facilities in the area are being considerably expanded. The Southampton Government training centre was expanded last year by 116 places to a total of 387. A further 40 places will be added shortly. In addition, a centre with 148 places is due to be opened in Portsmouth in the near future. Improvements are taking place, but I am well aware of the difficulties in the area.

Factories (Prosecutions)

Mr. William Price: asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many firms were prosecuted by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Factories during 1972.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: During 1972 1,527 firms were prosecuted under the Factories Act and other legislation administered by Her Majesty's Factory Inspectorate.

Mr. Price: Why were there not more? Are not many industrialists getting away with outrageous malpractices merely because there are not enough factory inspectors to go round? When will the Factory Inspectorate be big enough to do the job properly?

Mr. Macmillan: The hon. Gentleman is drawing a totally unwarranted conclusion from the figures I have given. In 1968 there were 928 prosecutions; in
 

1969, 1,050; in 1970, 1,185; in 1971, 1,315 and in 1972, 1,527. Prosecutions are taken when they appear to be necessary. There are other factors to be taken into account, and there are also other methods of ensuring that the law is complied with and that proper precautions are taken.

Sir Gilbert Longden: Will my right hon. Friend say when action will be taken on the Robens Report?

Mr. Macmillan: Yes, I hope very soon to be in a position to give the House more details on this. The Government have accepted the principle of the Robens Report, which underlines what I have just said. While recognising the need to keep a statutory backing of the health and safety regulations, it emphasised strongly the need for the co-operation of management and workpeople in protecting people at work by prevention as well as by prosecution.

Mr. Harold Walker: Notwithstanding the Government's acceptance of the principle of the Robens Report, will the right hon. Gentleman accept that the Opposition have some reservations? Will he assure the House that before the Government commit themselves to proposals we shall have an opportunity to discuss the principles and philosophy of the report?

Mr. Macmillan: Two questions are involved. There is the question of organisation and there is the question of the methods that that organisation will use. It is on the second that consultation with employers and unions is most essential. Part of the Robens concept is that the methods of ensuring safety and health at work will in the first instance be applied through a body on which unions and employers are represented, and that is why consultation is so important.

Empire Pools, Blackpool (Dispute)

Mr. Milne: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will now make an offer to conciliate in the dispute between Empire Pools, Blackpool, and the Union of Shop Distributive and Allied Workers.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: My Department's officials have offered on several occasions to assist in the present dispute but the company considers that no useful
 


purpose would be served by a meeting at this stage.

Mr. Milne: Is the Minister aware that the mainspring of the firm's attitude-following a decision on a meeting with his conciliation officer and an agreement to recognise the union—is that the firm discovered a difference of £6 per week between its rates and the rates paid to comparable grades by its competitors, Littlewoods and others? Is the hon. Gentleman also aware that there is considerable local concern and that the Lord Mayor of Blackpool has intervened because of the likely effect on trade union conferences in the town? Will he try to get the firm to keep to the recognition agreement that it has concluded with the union?

Mr. Chicbester-Clark: I understand the local concern but, while officials can be of help by way of negotiation, there is no statutory power to impose conciliation upon parties. Although from the Government's point of view, as has always been made clear, reference to the National Industrial Relations Court is a matter of last resort, this is a classic case in which the union itself could have gone to the NIRC had it been a registered union but, unfortunately, it is an unregistered union.

Mr. Torney: Is the Minister aware that this dispute presents an excellent opportunity for the Government to put into practice the Prime Minister's pronouncement that he believes in the trade union movement and wants to be conciliatory to it? The employers are being very obstinate. Would not this be an excellent opportunity for the Government to put a little pressure on them? Does the Minister realise that it is a question not purely of wages but of recognition, and will he bring pressure to bear on the employers?

Mr. Chichester-Clark: I do not wish to comment on the merits of the dispute except to say that it is a pity that this case could not have been taken to the NIRC by the union. Unfortunately the union disbarred itself by being an unregistered union. I hope that the parties will consider afresh the whole possibility of joint talks under the Department's chairmanship.

Young Persons (North East)

Mr. Horam: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what was the number of youths under 18 years of age unemployed in the North East at the latest available date.

Mr. Dudley Smith: Two thousand four hundred and twenty-six boys under 18 were registered as unemployed on 12th March.

Mr. Horam: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that he has given me only half the figure? What about the number of girls who were unemployed? Does he agree that the percentage reduction is very small by comparison with the general fall in unemployment? Is not that disturbing?

Mr. Smith: In recent months there has been a steady improvement for all young people in the North East. On 12th March 4,252 young people under 18— that is, 2,426 boys and 1,826 girls—were registered as unemployed. The number has fallen from 15,000 since August 1972 and includes a fall of 700 over the past month. The situation in the North East is not good but it is improving.

Mr. R. W. Elliott: Is my hon. Friend aware that the take-up in the Northern Region of the greatly improved incentives to incoming industry is way ahead of that of any other area? Does he appreciate that there is now much greater hope for unemployed young people, male or female, than there ever was during Labour's six and a half years in office?

Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend always approaches these matters sensibly and realistically. That is the position. However much the Opposition may pretend otherwise, it is a fact.

Hospital Workers (Dispute)

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what action his conciliation machinery has taken to secure a settlement of the pay dispute involving hospital ancillary workers.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: The wage increase offered is at the limit allowable in stage 2 of the counter-inflation policy, and the unions concerned have been urged to put their case to the Pay Board
 


which is being asked to report on anomalies created by the standstill by 15th September. In these circumstances there is no scope for conciliation.

Mr. Pavitt: Is it not time that the right hon. Gentleman changed his policy of masterly inactivity in disputes of this kind? Is it not time he used all the initiative his Department may have, especially in this case when a very hard-pressed section of the community will be able to cease its dispute immediately if its request for a provisional inquiry, as put forward by the BMA, is met? Will he not move on this?

Mr. Macmillan: The suggestion of the BMA was for an inquiry whether by the Pay Board or other methods. As has been made clear to the unions concerned, the Pay Board is operational and will be formally so very shortly. The union can put its case to the board immediately. The hon. Gentleman refers to the conciliation power of my Department. Since the offer made by the employers is at the limit allowable under stage 2 of the counter-inflation policy, there is clearly no room for further conciliation.

Sir P. Bryan: Would my right hon. Friend agree that one result of the present dispute has been to show up the anomalies in the wage structure within the industry? Will he confirm that the Pay Board is in a position to make recommendations not only on wage rates but also on wage structure?

Mr. Macmillan: The terms of reference of the Pay Board, which will be formally published as soon as the board is formally constituted, make it quite plain that it is within its remit to consider anomalies and relativities both as between different industries and within any given industry. My hon. Friend's point is fully covered.

Mr. William Hamilton: Is it not quite plain that as a result of the Government's policies the standard of living of these people—some of the lowest-paid in the country—will be worse 12 months from now?

Mr. Macmillan: No, Sir.

Dame Irene Ward: Reverting to my right hon. Friend's answer about anomalies and things, may I ask whether that means that women will be paid the same as men?

Mr. William Hamilton: No.

Dame Irene Ward: This is very important. I would like to know. May I also ask my right hon. Friend, whose policy; support, whether it is in the national interest—I am not now making a party political point—that people such as the hospital workers should be so low-paid? Ought not action to be taken before this kind of situation arises? I wish that all parties in Government would consider this angle, because we do not want our people to be underpaid.

Mr. Macmillan: This is the whole purpose of the Pay Board and of referring to it not only the National Health Service ancillary workers but also other groups which have put forward precisely the same argument. As for the point my hon. Friend makes about pay for women, in addition to the £1·80 per week now available to women workers in the National Health Service there is a further offer of 80p per week as a step towards equal pay in equal steps of one-third between now and 1975. It is not possible to consider the position of one group of low-paid workers except in the way which is laid down for the Pay Board. We must then consider the anomalies and relativities arising initially out of stages 1 and 2 and the further terms of reference. Then we must go, by the end of the year, into the other anomalies.

Mr. John Grant: In view of the Minister's appalling intransigence over these disputes involving many low-paid workers, may I ask why he allowed the recent settlement in the newspaper industry to stand? Can he tell us the result of his investigations into that dispute?

Mr. Macmillan: It was settled under the same terms as a number of other settlements, as far as I recollect. If the hon. Gentleman wants more details he had better put down a Question about it. There have been 30 settlements within the stage 2 terms covering about 370,000 workers.

Mr. Harold Walker: Did I hear the right hon. Gentleman correctly, that the Pay Board would not be required to report until September? Is he aware that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services was reported on the one o'clock news today as having said that implementation would be in December?
 


Is not this an intolerable and unacceptable length of time for these low-paid workers to have to wait for justice? If the right hon. Gentleman is so sure that the Pay Board can resolve the dilemma, why is he being so stiff-necked about an alternative form of inquiry?

Mr. Macmillan: The alternative form of inquiry is not compatible with the exercise that is the whole function of an independent Pay Board. The Pay Board has been asked to report as soon as possible and in any case not later than 15th September. This is to enable all its findings, including those concerning other low-paid groups of workers, to be considered by the Government, and I hope by the unions, when framing policies for stage 3 of the counter-inflation programme.

Automation

Mr. Meacher: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will estimate the number of jobs lost in each of the last five years as a result of the introduction of automotive and mechanically-controlled machines.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: I regret that this information does not exist.

Mr. Meacher: Is the Minister aware that Government sources indicate that in the last five to seven years about 2 million jobs have disappeared largely because of new capital technology? If we are ever to return again to full employment, is it not quite clear that we will need a massive planned expansion of non-productive services on a scale far beyond anything that the Government have so far envisaged?

Mr. Chichester-Clark: I do not know from where the hon. Gentleman gets his figures. We know that he nearly always has figures which nobody can find anywhere else.

Sir R. Thompson: Is my hon. Friend aware that recent studies in the United States have indicated that by the turn of the century all the work necessary to be done in the North American continent can be performed by 2 per cent. of the population? If those studies are even half correct, the social consequences for other advanced industrial nations are very severe. Can my hon. Friend say whether any long-term research is being
 

carried out by his Department into this problem?

Mr. Chichester-Clark: I can tell my hon. Friend that records are available. They were started on 1st June 1972 because of the interest in redundancies due to technological change. The records suggest that jobs lost by way of technological change come very low on the list.

Hartlepool

Mr. Leadbitter: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the trends of unemployment in the Hartlepool exchange area.

Mr. Dudley Smith: Unemployment in Hartlepool has been and still is too high, but the situation improved significantly over the past year.

Mr. Leadbitter: The first part of the hon. Gentleman's answer is abundantly clear and correct. The last part is stupid and irresponsible. Will he bear in mind that by 1975—that is, two years from now— a further 2,800 jobs will be lost in the town due to the closure of the steelworks? Two years following that a further 1,700 jobs will be lost. The present unemployment is over 3,000. The hon. Gentleman's thinking in the House is utter nonsense. Will he not do something about it?

Mr. Smith: The "utter nonsense" is the figures which are officially compiled. Unemployment amongst men and boys in Hartlepool has fallen by over 1,000 in the past year, from 3,590 to 2,480. The rate has fallen from 10·4 per cent. in March 1972 to 7·4 per cent. this March. We have never pretended that the position in Hartlepool was anything other than serious. We know perfectly well that the steel closures will present a considerable problem. That is why we set up a task force to prepare proposals for comprehensive economic and social measures to deal with the rundown.

Mr. Leadbitter: Too long.

Mr. Smith: The Hartlepools has been made a special development area. Assistance is now available under the Industry Act. No Government could be doing more for an area which has suffered under difficulty for a very long
 


time, including the time of the last Labour Government. It is irresponsible and stupid of the hon. Member to make statements like that.

Settlement of Disputes (Statistics)

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish in respect of 1954, 1964, 1969 and 1971 an analysis of the method of settlement of disputes as published in respect of 1933 and 1943.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: The collection of data for this analysis was discontinued in 1945.

Mr. Jenkins: Is it not regrettable that the Government have discontinued the collection of statistics about the way in which disputes are settled? Did not all the information at one time available show that the vast majority of disputes were settled by direct negotiations between the parties concerned? Is it not the case that it is only the Government's intervention at the moment which is preventing the settlement of a number of disputes including, for example, that of the hospital workers? Therefore, the Government are directly responsible for the maintenance of these disputes.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: I do not accept for one moment what the hon. Gentleman says. I do not believe that he accepts it in his heart either. If he wants to blame Governments for having discontinued these figures, he had better turn on his right hon. and hon. Friends. They made no attempt to reintroduce the collection of these figures. What the hon. Gentleman says about the majority of disputes being settled by direct negotiations between the parties concerned is, of course, true. A relatively small proportion of them reach the stage of conciliation or arbitration.
It is difficult to see how these figures would have been of very much help. The methods by which disputes are settled are by no means as clearcut as some might suppose. Several methods can be used before a settlement is reached and all of them may have played an important part in reaching a settlement.

Mr. Redmond: Does my hon. Friend keep records of the number of cases handled by his conciliation officers? If
 

so, what is the number of cases handled by them? Is it increasing or decreasing?

Mr. Chichester-Clark: There is absolutely no evidence to suggest, as some hon. Members opposite sometimes do, that there has been any loss of faith in the conciliation service. In 1972 officials conciliated in 716 disputes, of which 150 involved stoppages of work, compared with 650, including 166 stoppages, in 1971. On the evidence, there is very great confidence in the conciliation service.

Llanwern Steelworks (Dispute)

Mr. Roy Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement about the dispute involving boilermakers at the Spencer Works, Llanwern, Newport, Monmouthshire.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: About 300 members of the Boilermakers' Union employed at the British Steel Corporation's Spencer Works have been on unofficial strike since 6th February following the dismissal of a shop steward over an incident involving a foreman. Some 3,000 other workers have now been laid off as a result.
Conciliation officers from my Department have held joint and separate discussions with representatives of the corporation and the Boilermakers' Union, but I regret that agreement on a basis for a return to work has not yet been found. Informal discussions are continuing and my officers are giving what help they can.

Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister appreciate that the strike resulted from a minor incident and that several thousand people have now been put out of work? Does he not feel that the British Steel Corporation is adopting a rather intransigent attitude by insisting on sanctions against the man concerned before submitting the case to an independent arbitration? Will the Minister, in view of the serious social consequences involved, institute an inquiry into the dispute so that the full facts can be ascertained and the men can get back to work?

Mr. Chichester-Clark: I do not think that an inquiry would be helpful in the present circumstances. For that course to be taken there has to be a basis for a
 


return to work, and that would need to be found first.
I do not think that I should comment on the merits of the dispute. Certainly there was an incident involving one worker. Whether that incident was a serious one is not for me to say. It was open to the dismissed employee to make a complaint to an industrial tribunal under the unfair dismissal provision of the Industrial Relations Act. Apparently he decided not to do so.

Mr. Callaghan: As the Minister has said, the dispute involves only one man, and thousands of men are now out of work as a result. Will he tell us what is the objection to the proposition that I put forward, following my hon. Friend, that the man, whatever the merits or demerits of his offence, should be allowed to return to work without prejudice to an immediate disciplinary inquiry? That would entirely cut the ground from under those who wish to strike—from the 275 men who are on strike—and thousands of men could then get back to work. The disciplinary inquiry could be held immediately, and the verdict would have to be accepted. None of us knows the facts. Is not this a case where, for the sake of one man, it should be possible to allow him to return to work, provided an immediate disciplinary inquiry is held?

Mr. Chichester-Clark: As I understand it, the BSC is prepared to go to arbitration provided that there is a full return to work and the dismissed shop steward remains suspended without pay. The union officials would agree to go to arbitration and to return to work provided that the shop steward was taken back or suspended on full pay. I would not want to comment further on that. If we can achieve something by conciliation, that is always open, but I do not think we can go further than that today.

Peterlee New Town

Mr. Dormand: asked the Secretary of State for Employment which projects for which his Department is responsible are being considered for location in Peterlee New Town.

Mr. Dudley Smith: My right hon. Friend is considering setting up a job centre separate from the present employment exchange.

Mr. Dormand: That at least is more encouragement than the information I am usually given when I raise matters affecting the new town in my constituency. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, although Peterlee is the most attractive and best-designed new town in the country, with a dedicated staff and board, it is still attracting less employment than any other new town? Will he do something about this, particularly in view of the fact that there has been a pit closure in recent months? Finally, does he agree that the most immediate and the most important way of doing something about it is to transfer a Government Department or agency? Would not his Department show an example by doing that?

Mr. Smith: I agree with a good deal of what the hon. Gentleman has said. He knows that the transfer of Government Departments—a matter on which he has been making assiduous representations— is not one for me. The response to the training facilities in the area is fairly poor from Peterlee, which gives us some concern. Anything that the hon. Gentleman can do to encourage his constituents to take up the opportunities which are there would be appreciated.

Occupational Classification

Mr. Michael Shaw: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he is taking to bring the new occupational classification system CODOT to the attention of employers.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: Every available opportunity is being taken to publicise CODOT, in addition to publicity through the usual media, particularly the Press and specialist journals. My Department's officers have also contacted a wider selection of employers personally or by mail.

Mr. Shaw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that information, but is it not true that more publicity could still be given to this scheme which, although small, is eminently worth while?

Mr. Chichester-Clark: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, and for that reason I am grateful to him for his Question, which I am sure will help to publicise the project. He may be interested to know that his own classification under CODOT is 001.

Industrial Relations Training

Mr. Madel: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what consultation he has had with the Confederation of British Industry and the Trades Union Congress on improvements in training in industrial relations.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: Consultations are taking place at official level between my Department and the CBI and TUC.

Mr. Madel: Have there been any consultations with the TUC on the CIR Report on industrial relations training?

Mr. Chichester-Clark: The discussions with the TUC, with the education department, were concerned principally with how the TUC saw shop steward training developing in future. They were not, for reasons which the House will understand, specifically upon the CIR Report.

Motor and Engineering Industries (Stoppages)

Mr. Holland: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what was the number of strikes in the motor vehicle and engineering industries lasting less than four days during 1970 and during the whole of 1972.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: The official series of statistics excludes stoppages lasting less than one day, unless the total number of days lost exceeds 100. In 1970 stoppages included in the official series which lasted not more than three days numbered 211 in motor manufacturing and 423 in engineering. Comparable statistics are not yet available for 1972 and I shall write to my hon. Friend in due course.

Mr. Holland: Notwithstanding the failure of the Department to produce figures which should be available, can my hon. Friend give any indication of the trend in the numbers of short-term wildcat strikes since the change of Government in 1970?

Mr. Chichester-Clark: These figures should be available by the end of next month. As for my hon. Friend's other question, 1971 was a considerable improvement on 1970 as regards short-term stoppages. There were little more
 

than halt the previous number of stoppages in these industries in that year. The number of workers involved also fell substantially, as did the number of working days lost.

Mr. Heifer: Is not the Minister talking utter and complete rubbish? What has happened is precisely what the Government were warned about, that if they brought in such legislation as the Industrial Relations Act all that we would get were bigger and better strikes, for which the Government would be responsible.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: The hon. Gentleman is an expert on talking rubbish. He clearly has not listened to the reply. He came into the House with his supplementary question presumably written down or at any rate well noted mentally and he did not change it in the light of my answer, which showed a considerable improvement.

PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACY (MINISTER'S SPEECH)

Ql. Mr. Skinner: asked the Prime Minister if the public speech made by the Lord Chancellor on 10th March at Margate on parliamentary authority represents Government policy.

Mr. Adley: asked the Prime Minister if the public speech by the Lord Chancellor at Margate on 10th March on parliamentary democracy represents Government policy.

Mr. Peter Archer: asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech of the Lord Chancellor on individual freedom at Margate on 10th March represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Norman Lamont: asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech of the Lord Chancellor on liberty under the law on 10th March at Margate represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): Yes, Sir. The concept of liberty under law, which was the theme of my noble and learned Friend's speech, is an


essential element in the Government's policies.

Mr. Skinner: But is the Prime Minister aware that in his speech about parliamentary democracy the Lord Chancellor implied that property speculators were partly responsible for undermining the system? What does the right hon. Gentleman himself think about property speculators, especially today, when he is being used in The Times to advertise the multi-million-pound Heathrow Hotel, next to Mick Jagger? Why is he concerned about this matter? Is it because he is being used to help property speculation or because he is put next to Mick Jagger?

The Prime Minister: First, the hon. Gentleman has completely misread my noble and learned Friend's speech—

Mr. Skinner: No, I have read it all.

The Prime Minister: I did not say that the hon. Gentleman had not read it. I said that he had misread it, and that is now apparent. As for the advertisement in The Times, I am not annoyed; I am just slightly surprised that apparently a reputable paper should have put in an advertisement of that kind.

Mr. Adley: In his speech the Lord Chancellor quoted Disraeli's remark that, if we wished parliamentary democracy to continue, we had to have party government. While many people are happy to see my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister as a latter-day Disraeli, will he agree that, if we are to encourage moderate trade unionists to stand up for what they believe to be right, they must get a lead from the Government, and that they are now getting that lead?

The Prime Minister: I would not wish to enter into an argument about historical analogies. On my hon. Friend's other point about moderate trade unionists, this is a matter for them. The Government, in their tripartite talks, showed that they were prepared to discuss anything at any time with them, and this remains our attitude. But the decisions of trade unions and trade unionists must continue to be for them to take.

Mr. Archer: Since the Lord Chancellor made the point that effective action

by Governments is sometimes necessary to protect freedom, will the Government now ratify and implement the international convention on human rights? Since he also emphasised the need for a Government lead in creating a climate of opinion, what public events have the Government in mind this year to celebrate the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

The Prime Minister: The hon. and learned Member knows the position about the ratification of the human rights convention, but the present Government have certainly done as much as their predecessors to maintain human rights. In those spheres where we have been under challenge—for example, in Northern Ireland—the Government have clearly shown their determination to ensure that human rights are protected.

ENERGY RESOURCES

Mr. Douglas: asked the Prime Minister if he will raise the topic of a Commonwealth organisation for the exploitation of energy resources at the next Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference.

The Prime Minister: I have no plans to raise this matter.

Mr. Douglas: Will the Prime Minister reconsider that answer? Does he not agree that, in view of the threatened world energy shortage, energy policy is of unique importance? Does he not also agree that the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference would be an admirable forum to bring together the needs of the developing and developed nations on world energy problems?

The Prime Minister: I would not question the hon. Gentleman's statement about the vital importance of this matter, and I am aware that he has made a contribution to the subject by the publication of his own pamphlet. The matter may come up in the general discussion at the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference on economic affairs and international affairs generally, but I do not think that the meeting of Commonwealth Prime Ministers is the right body to make decisions about energy policy or to implement them. It was in that sense that I was answering the Question.

Mr. Redmond: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we are in an energy crisis? Is not the Government's action over the coal industry right in giving the mining industry a future if the miners match the courage which they have shown during this last week with restraint? Is not this an opportunity for my right hon. Friend to pay tribute to the courage of the miners in Yorkshire for what they have done in the last week?

The Prime Minister: I have already paid my tribute publicly to the miners concerned. On the subject of coal, the Government are trying to achieve a balanced energy policy which is concerned not only with the immediate situation but also with longer-term developments, whether in the oil industry or the requirement for coal or in the future that we foresee for nuclear power.

UNITED KINGDOM (ENTRY SECURITY)

Sir Gilbert Longden: asked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the co-ordination between the Northern Ireland Office and the Home Office in the matter of security precautions in controlling entry into the United Kingdom from Eire and Northern Ireland, respectively.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

Sir Gilbert Longden: Would my right hon. Friend care to hazard a guess at how much longer the people of Great Britain will tolerate in Northern Ireland on the one hand the conspiracy of silence which shields these brutal murderers— whose identities must be know to hundreds of their fellow citizens—and on the other hand the obduracy of some of those who so quaintly call themselves loyalists?

The Prime Minister: On the first part of the question, we all recognise the power of intimidation which has been exercised in certain part of Northern Ireland, particularly perhaps recently in Belfast. But we also welcome the fact that more and more information is coming forward to the security forces and that advantage is being taken of this. This is shown by the number of arrests which have been made in recent weeks and also in the collections which have been made of arms

and explosives. On the second part of my hon. Friend's question involving what he called the obduracy of those who call themselves loyalists, I would have thought that last Saturday's meeting, which was on such a small scale, gives us encouragement to believe that moderate opinion— and a great deal of Northern Irish opinion —is in support of the Government's proposals in the White Paper. I believe that those proposals will receive more and more support.

Miss Devlin: While accepting the need and the Government's desire for necessary security precautions in this country, may I ask the Prime Minister to ensure that such precautions are not carried out to such an extent that they are an infringement of civil liberties of individuals—as witness the case of 10 persons detained in Ealing police station? Could he state under what security regulations they were denied access to lawyers, visitors and priests and kept for four days in conditions in which, save for a blanket, all 10 were stark naked?

The Prime Minister: It is essential that all precautions should be taken in security matters, but there is no intention of impinging on civil liberties. If there is any accusation on those lines, it is a matter for the courts to deal with.

Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must remind the House that we shall this week have a two-day debate on Northern Ireland.

SOUTH AFRICA

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: asked the Prime Minister what is the policy of his administration on visits to the Republic of South Africa by Cabinet Ministers.

The Prime Minister: We welcome them. These visits, on a suitable occasion, provide contact which is better than boycott as a means to promote change.

Mr. Huckfield: Does the Prime Minis-tea" appreciate that any such ministerial visits are seen by the South African Government as giving tacit approval to their system of apartheid? Does he not understand that there is a widespread belief throughout the world, particularly following the release of recent figures, that it is British investment which is
 


keeping apartheid going in Africa? Will he do something to stress to Cabinet Ministers the importance of not visiting South Africa and being seen to keep their system going?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman's view. It has been the policy of Ministers in successive Governments to visit other countries when they are in disagreement—and in serious disagreement—with policies pursued by Governments in those countries. We have often been pressed by the Opposition to make visits of this kind. Am I right in thinking that the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) made a visit to the Republic in the autumn of last year? If so, what is the difference?

Miss Joan Hall: Has the Prime Minister had any discussions lately with the South African Government about security of shipping in the Indian Ocean, particularly with regard to tankers around the South African coastline, which is very important to this country?

The Prime Minister: We have not recently had any discussions with the South African Government about this matter but, as the House knows, we have said we will carry out our undertakings under the Simonstown agreement.

Mr. David Steel: Given the Government's views on the visits of Cabinet Ministers to South Africa, does the Prime Minister think it right that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science should have shrugged aside the harassment of student leaders in South Africa when it has been condemned by the vice-chancellors of the universities? Was not this a chance for the Secretary of State to have spoken firmly on the matter?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science was on a visit concerned with scientific matters, and in many instances it is right that a Minister should not comment on the internal affairs of other countries.

Captain W. Elliot: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the West had ostracised Russia at the end of the Second World War, we would probably by now

have had a third world war? Does he not agree that the more visits made by Ministers and by members of the public to all countries the better, and that such visits are an excellent thing?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, that is my view. I suppose historically many people might say that if a different approach had been made directly after the Russian Revolution in 1917, the history of the 1920s and 1930s and all that followed might have been very different.

Mr. Michael Foot: If the Prime Minister feels that he can do nothing to preserve the good name of this country by giving advice to Cabinet Ministers visiting South Africa, can he at least do something immediately to deal with the British firms engaged in large-scale exploitation of South African labour? When will the Government do something about this situation?

The Prime Minister: Members of the Cabinet act quite properly in these matters, and the Secretary of State for Education and Science acted perfectly properly in South Africa. On the question of British firms, it has already been made public on many occasions and in this House that the Department of Trade and Industry advises British businessmen of their rights and obligations in South Africa and their opportunities to improve the conditions of those who work there. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) in his enthusiasm for this cause is being unfair to many British firms which have deliberately taken action to improve the conditions of workers in South Africa.

Mr. Foot: If the Prime Minister thinks that I have been unfair to any British firm in this respect, will he undertake to publish in Hansard the replies which each firm has given to inquiries directed to firms by the Department of Trade and Industry?

The Prime Minister: What I said was that the Department of Trade and Industry had informed all these firms of their ability to improve conditions for workers in South Africa. The Department has not directed inquiries to firms; it has informed firms of these matters. This information is freely made available to the British firms in South Africa. This
 


is the responsibility of the Department of Trade and Industry and it has quite rightly carried it out.

Miss Lestor: asked the Prime Minister if he will seek to pay an official visit to South Africa.

The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so, Sir.

Miss Lestor: But bearing in mind what the Prime Minister has just said about not boycotting South Africa, bearing in mind the theory consistently advanced by the Conservative Government that British involvement in South Africa would be a way of undermining apartheid, and also bearing in mind recent disclosures in The Guardian and other newspapers that this is blatantly untrue and that investment in South Africa means investment in apartheid, will he reconsider his plans not to visit South Africa? Will he visit South Africa and test for himself the theory that British investment in that country upholds and supports the apartheid régime?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. But I welcome the decisions announced by British firms which invest in South Africa to take further action themselves to deal with these matters.

Mr. Hastings: Would it not be a good idea if the Opposition could make up their minds whether they want more or fewer Cabinet Ministers to go to South Africa?

The Prime Minister: That difficult question should be put to the Opposition.

Mr. Richard: Does the Prime Minister recognise that there is widespread concern, which is not confined to one side of the House of Commons, about the recent disclosures in The Guardian? Why on earth will not the Government accept that people would very much like to know precisely the facts about British firms in South Africa and how they treat their African labourers? Why does not the Prime Minister therefore use the machinery of this House to institute some kind of inquiry into the ways in which our firms are carrying on in South Africa?

Mr. Michael Foot: Because he does not give a damn.

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman, who usually interjects from a seated

position, is quite wrong about this matter. There is concern in this country about the conditions of those who work in South Africa. The hon. and learned Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) is himself casting doubt on the report in The Guardian by suggesting that somebody had better be sent there to find out whether this is the true situation. If the House of Commons wants one of its Committees to go there, it is for the House to arrange, not for the Government. What the Government do, through their Departments, is to inform all British firms of what they can do to improve conditions in South Africa.

Mr. Harold Wilson: In view of what appeared to be the rather helpful remarks by the Prime Minister in answer to that last question, may I ask whether he will now therefore take the necessary steps to put down a motion on the Order Paper to give a Select Committee of the House locus standi to inquire into this question? Surely that was what he meant. Will he now go ahead with it?

The Prime Minister: The affairs of Committees of this House are under their own jurisdiction, as the right hon. Gentleman knows well. If one of the Committees of this House deems it right and appropriate to investigate these matters, it is for that Committee to take the necessary action.

AIRCRAFT NOISE RESTRICTION BILL

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to restrict aircraft noise.
The Bill which I seek leave to introduce is, as the lawyers say mutatis mutandis a translation of a Bill currently before the State of New York. That Bill, introduced in that country by Assemblyman Harris and Senator Smith, seeks to limit aircraft noise within that State. The Bill which I am introducing would apply to the whole of the United Kingdom but in other respects its effects and the effects of the Bill currently being introduced in the State Assembly of New York would be the same.
The American Bill recognises that aircraft noise in excess of 108 effective perceived noise decibel levels—I have a
 


certain amount of noise decibels to contend with on my Front Bench at the moment, but I think that I can put up with it—which is called EPNDB for short, should be prohibited.
There are administrative limits here. The authorities at Heathrow have already expressed administratively that noise should be limited to 102 EPNDB at night and 112 during the day. However, these limits are without legal sanction and penalty. They apply only to take-off noise, not to landing noise.
My Bill follows the American pattern in carrying penalties and in being enforceable, but if at any point it were possible for us to do better than the Americans —for example, in requiring closer limits on night noise—this could be looked at in Committee.
In support of their Bill the American sponsors say that aircraft noise is interfering with the daily lives of people both inside and outside their homes, at their work-places, and that it constitutes
a degradation of their environment".
The same degradation of the environment is occurring in this country.
The Americans say that aircraft noise interferes with teaching in schools, with the work of doctors and with the recovery of patients in hospitals. Precisely the same is happening in the vicinity of Heathrow and elsewhere in the country.
The Bill would prohibit landing or take-off noise at airports over the limit of 108 EPNDB prescribed, except that in cases of emergency the noise level could be exceeded. No other distinction or limitation is made.
Apart from its intrinsic merits and urgent necessity, the Bill will provide an interesting experiment in international co-operation. It is often felt that the great barrier to reducing aircraft noise is that the country which does it unilaterally risks grave commercial consequences. However, if it were done simultaneously both here and in New York, I do not think it would be long before all other States and countries would have to fall in line.
It might be necessary to allow a certain amount of time to fit jet aircraft with the silencing kits which are now available and can be fitted at some little

expense. Concorde, on landing and takeoff, would have to get under the 108 EPNDB, but, as the manufacturers say that the production aircraft will have no difficulty in meeting normal levels, there should be no complaint from the British Aircraft Corporation.
I believe that the Bill will be the first occasion on which an attempt will be made to reproduce American legislation in the United Kingdom terms. It will be an attractive technical exercise as well as a useful and necessary measure.
One of the first things that I attempted to do on coming into this House was to limit aircraft noise. In my inexperience I tried to go too far and too fast at one bound and I finished up losing my Bill. This is a modest measure, which I have succeeded in introducing within the 10 minutes available to me. I trust that the House will wish to see the Bill and that the Government will not oppose giving it a Second Reading in due course.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Hugh Jenkins, Mr. Michael Barnes, Mr. Sydney Bidwell, Mr. Norman Buchan, Mr. Toby Jessel, Mr. Frank Judd. Miss Joan Lestor, Mr. Elystan Morgan, Mr. Neville Sandelson, Sir George Sinclair and Mrs. Shirley Williams.

AIRCRAFT NOISE RESTRICTION

Bill to restrict aircraft noise presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday 13th April and to be printed. [Bill 99.]

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT (MINISTERS' SPEECHES)

Mr. Speaker: I wish to add something to my ruling yesterday on the matter raised by the hon. Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. George Cunningham). It is in clarification of the answer which I gave to his supplementary question.
The hon. Member expressed concern that he might be debarred from asking the Prime Minister about any ministerial speeches made abroad on the ground that there was always a presumption that a Minister speaking abroad did represent the policy of Her Majesty's Government. Although this may in practice often be the case, the basic distinction—this is the new point—is not simply between
 


speeches made abroad and at home; it is between those made, for want of a better description, in a representative and a non-representative capacity. If a Minister of Cabinet rank addresses a public meeting, whether in London or in Paris, then the only question which is in order is one to the Prime Minister asking whether what the Minister said represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government. On the other hand, if any Minister officially represents the Government at an international conference or deliberative body, whether at home or abroad, then any speech he makes must be presumed to be made in such a representative capacity, and questions about its details can be addressed to whichever Minister is departmentally responsible for their substance.
In ruling in this sense in 1963 my then predecessor was not making any innovation but was giving expression to a practice of long standing. The practice is, in my view, sensible and advantageous to hon. Members.

Mr. George Cunningham: I am grateful, Mr. Speaker, for that further clarification. May I say, without disrespect, Mr. Speaker, that your rulings of yesterday and today do not totally remove the problems that face hon. Members. In your ruling of yesterday, Mr. Speaker, you said—you have repeated it today— that the situation created by what happened in Strasbourg was not new in that Ministers have frequently spoken at the meetings of the Council of Europe, and so on, in the past.
I put this point to you, Mr. Speaker, for its future relevance. In the past, so far as I know, Ministers may have reported the views of the Council of Europe or of some other body of which they were members, but surely it is unprecedented—this is the new point—that a Minister apparently expressing his own views when he expressed them was found later to have modified those views in the light of the majority opinion of the European Council of Ministers. In other words, he was doing that compromising operation which happens within a cabinet of a national Government.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that that raises new issues. We have for the first time a British Minister not reporting the views of a body of which the British Government is a member but putting them over as the British view, having first modified the British view to take account of the views of other members of the body. In this situation I say respectfully that there are considerations which go beyond the bounds of order and of what can be dealt with by a ruling from the Chair. What is required now is that there should be a statement by the Chancellor of the Duchy, the Foreign Secretary or the Prime Minister—perhaps by the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the European Community—so that in future we know were we stand when a British Minister speaking abroad confesses that he has adapted his views to take account of the views of the Council of Ministers.

Mr. Speaker: I shall consider what the hon. Gentleman said. I do not propose to say anything more about the matter today.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE REORGANISATION [MONEY]

Queen's recommendation having been signified—

Resolved
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further provision with respect to the National Health Service in England and Wales, it is expedient to authorise—

(1) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

(a) any expenses incurred for the purposes of that Act by the Secretary of State;

(b) any expenses so incurred by a per son holding office in pursuance of that Act as the Health Service Commissioner for England or for Wales;
(c) any increase attributable to that Act in the sums payable out of such moneys under any other Act;

(2) the charging on and issuing out of the Consolidated Fund of the salary payable in pursuance of that Act to a person who holds office as such a Commissioner and of any pension or other benefit so payable to or in respect of a former holder of such an office;
(3).the payment into the Consolidated fund of any sums received by the Secretary of State by virtue of that Act.—[Mr. Peter Thomas.]

RATE SUPPORT GRANT (SCOTLAND)

10.24 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Development, Scottish Office (Mr. George Younger): I beg to move,
That the Rate Support Grant (Increase) (Scotland) Order 1973, a copy of which was laid before this House on 16th March, be approved.

Mr. Speaker: It may be for the convenience of the House to discuss at the same time the following motion:
That the Rate Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1973, a copy of which was laid before this House on 16th March, be approved.

Mr. Younger: The Rate Support Grant (Scotland) Order, to which I will refer as the main order, is to provide a grant for local authorities during the two financial years 1973–74 and 1974–75 —that is for the fourth period of rate support grant, and for the last full period before we reorganise local government in Scotland. Although the order covers two years, it is the first of the two years, 1973–74, with which we are most concerned tonight.
The Local Government (Scotland) Bill, which we are discussing in Standing Committee, will provide, if and when it is passed, that any existing rate support grant order shall cease to have effect in respect of the year 1974–75. We shall no doubt discuss the provisions for 1974–75 on another occasion, perhaps in about a year, and, with reorganisation then close upon us, we may decide on quite different grant amounts for that year. But there will be no further opportunity to consider the grant to be provided for 1973–74 and that is therefore what should be of most interest to us tonight.
Rate support grant is the main financial prop for local authorities. It contributes much more to local government finance than do local rates and these orders are therefore very important to local government workings through the years. Before making the main order, the Secretary of State is required by the 1966 Act to consult the local authority associations on the level of costs and prices, on the need for developing services, and on the extent to which, having
 

regard to general economic conditions, it is reasonable to allow for development. In fact, there have been very active negotiations with the associations prior to the making of this order. I think it is fair to say that the details of the price base and the provision for development in the main order, and the cost increase calculations on which the increase order is based, have both been agreed by the local authority associations.
Perhaps I should remind the House of the working of the rate support grant system. The grant is in aid of local authority revenue expenditure—that is, expenditure which would otherwise fall to be met out of rates—but excluding contributions to housing revenue accounts, and to the trading services, which are of course expected to be self-supporting. The grant conveyed by the main order is thus fixed by reference to estimates of the expenditure of all local authorities.
Once total estimates have been reached, the grant percentage is decided and is applied to the estimates in order to give the aggregate of Government assistance. From this aggregate grant the specific grants on revenue expenditure are deducted, leaving more than nine-tenths of the aggregate grant to be distributed as rate support grant. The first main determinant of the rate support grant is thus the amount of reckonable expenditure, and the second is the percentage rate which is applied to that expenditure.
There are three elements of the rate support grant—the domestic element, the needs element and the resources element, each serving different purposes and distributed to the authorities on different criteria. Domestic element gives direct rates relief to the household ratepayer. Needs element, taking up nearly three-quarters of the grant, is distributed so as to compensate for the difference in circumstances between authorities—such as population, numbers of children or old persons, density, growth or decline of population and so on.
Resources element, nearly a quarter of total grant, compensates for local deficiencies of rateable resources. In effect it equalises the rateable resources at about the level of those authorities with the highest rateable values per head. I shall
 


be speaking again about the domestic element, but the orders now before the House make no changes of substance in the factors affecting distribution of the needs and resources elements—none has been asked for by the local authorities on this occasion—and I suggest that we need not concern ourselves with the complexities of grant distribution, so far as these two sections of the grant are concerned.
In our discussions with the local authority associations, we reached more or less complete agreement over the forecasts of expenditure for 1973–74 and 1974–75. It is, of course, only over the need and scope for developing the existing services that there is any significant room for differences of opinion. Hon. Members of all parties no doubt agree in regarding the improvement of local services as a desirable aim, but there is an overriding need, as we said in the White Paper of last December on Public Expenditure, to ensure that
the total calls on our resources for publicly financed services are kept within a rate of growth which does not prejudice other objectives
As it turns out, we are providing for rates of growth which are higher in real terms than those which underlay any previous rate support grant order. The forecasts are that expenditure at constant prices will increase at an average rate of over 4·6 per cent. annually from 1971–72, apart from the provision for servicing of debt. This compares with the figure of 25 per cent. annual growth for public expenditure generally which was indicated in the December White Paper. For 1973–74, the year with which we are more immediately concerned, the forecast is that local authority expenditure will amount to about £581 million.
I will not weary the House by mentioning at this stage details of every one of the service headings under which this expenditure comes, but I should mention one or two of the more important ones.
I begin with education, which accounts for more than half of the expenditure reckonable for rate support grant. The main expenditure consequences of the programme announced in the White Paper "Education in Scotland: A statement of policy", which I presented to the House in December, will not be felt until the later years of the decade, but
 

the estimates for 1974–75 do take account of the start we are making with the expansion of nursery education.
The new structure of promoted posts for secondary teachers has provided them with greater incentive and better prospects, and allowance has been made in the expenditure forecasts for the new structure to be fully implemented. We have also assumed a continuing annual growth of 3 per cent. in non-teaching costs per pupil and per student in schools and further education colleges respectively, to allow for improved standards of accommodation and for the rising expenditure on equipment and books needed to keep pace with increasingly sophisticated teaching methods.
The social work services—another heavy commitment for the authorities— have been developing at a rapid rate and provision has been made for continuing expansion in the next two years so as to give growth of 19·2 per cent. by 1974–75 over the close estimate of expenditure for the current year, in addition to increased provision for servicing of debt. This represents an annual average growth of 9·6 per cent. in real terms and will allow for the employment of a greater number of qualified social workers and supporting staff, for extra accommodation for the elderly and other groups and for expansion of the home help service.
On highways—which is second to education in terms of the amount of expenditure—in addition to loan charges, and in addition to some revenue expenditure within the current programme of additional works to promote employment, the figures in the report provide a little over 4 per cent. annually for improvement of maintenance standards.
If further details are required, I shall be glad to give them if I have an opportunity to reply to the debate.
Hon. Members may have noticed that in quoting rates of expenditure growth, I have generally taken care to exclude the cost of loan charges borne by the authorities. I do so because this element of expenditure reflects the amount of existing debt and the expected amount of capital investment. It is not affected by changes in routine maintenance and operation of services. In the report loan charges are allocated to services. If considered in
 


isolation, the cost of debt service is seen as a major element in local expenditure. It amounts to about one-sixth of the total reckonable expenditure and is forecast to reach about £111 million in 1974–75. This figure reflects the pace of capital investment in Scotland during recent years, including the capital expenditure in the current programme of additional works to promote employment.
Hon. Members will see that for each of the grant years there is a reduction of £1 million for efficiency and economy measures. I make no apology for this relatively small deduction from these very large estimates. Just as the forecasts for individual services are an indication of priorities and growth rates which might generally be followed, so the specific reduction for economy measures is intended to indicate the need for all authorities to eliminate unnecessary expenditure or activities, to find savings through greater efficiency. In all, the forecast for 1973–74 is a sum of £67 million greater than the estimate for the current year. We all want the continuing improvement in quality of local services which these estimates represent, but the consequent growth of local expenditure must be financed and the problems of finance have been aggravated by inflation.
This raises the question of rates. Rates are a factor affecting other costs and prices, and they are an important item in household budgets. The Government therefore intend that the average level of rate increases in 1973–74 should be kept within bounds compatible with our attack on inflation. Moderation in expenditure is plainly the first step towards stable rates, and I hope that local authorities will contain their expenditure within the guidelines indicated by the figures in the report.
We are providing in this order for an exceptional increase in the rate of grant, an increase of 1½ per cent. Previous increases have been 1 per cent. or half of 1 per cent. We are also making an addition of £1 million to the grant for 1973-74, as the report explains, to match the special temporary assistance which is being given to ratepayers in England and Wales this year, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer informed the House on 6th March. A large part
 

of the additional rate support grant will be used to shield the household ratepayer from rates increases, and we are adding £4·7 million to the domestic element. Accordingly the order provides that domestic rate poundages must be reduced by 15p in the pound instead of the present reduction of 12p in the pound.
In all, the Exchequer contribution towards local authority spending in 1973–74 on the services reckonable for rate support grant will be the massive sum of £396 million, of which £33 million is accounted for by specific grants and the rest by the rate support grant. What this means is that for every £100 of reckonable expenditure the Exchequer will be finding slightly over £68, rates as a whole slightly less than £32, and household rates, paid by individual householders only about £13·60p. Over the past six years, since the introduction of rate support grant, the share borne by grant has increased by 5½ per cent., and consequently the share falling on rates has been reduced by about one-seventh.
Taking account of the estimates, of the higher grant rate and of the additional £1 million the order gives effect to a reasonable, indeed, a generous, settlement. It should enable local authorities to maintain and improve the quality of services without substantial increases in rate poundages. In short, it creates the conditions in which rates can be stabilised, and it is with this in mind that we have decided that during 1973 we shall monitor changes in local rates. The word "monitor" is used carefully. What we intend is not to take away from the local authorities their discretion as to the requisition they issue or the rates they levy but to inform ourselves of the assumptions on which the fixing of rates and requisitions is likely to be based.
We may wish to exchange views with individual authorities. There are bound to be disparities in local needs, but in general we should expect the levels of expenditure to conform broadly with the estimates on which this main order is based, and that as a result over the country as a whole the average level of rate increases will be moderate and tolerable.
I should briefly refer to the increase order, but I will not take up the time of the House with detail. This order follows up the main order of 1971 and the increase order of 1972. By providing
 


additional grant to take account of the effect of changes in costs and prices it preserves the value of that 1971 settlement. Wages and salary awards are the main component in the cost increases which have affected local authority expenditure, and in 1972–73 they account for £33 million in a net increase of £48 million.
As the report explains, the estimates of cost increase are based on the systematic examination and calculation of the effects of wage awards and price changes on local government expenditure. They have been agreed with the local authority associations. The effect of the order is to authorise payment of £33 million of additional rate support grant to the authorities for the two years 1971–72 and 1972–73, which in itself should considerably ease the rating position in the coming year.
The increase order is to increase the existing grants for 1971–72 and 1972–73. The main order is to provide new grants for 1973–74 and 1974–75. I will be delighted to try to answer any questions which hon. Members may wish to raise. I commend the orders to the House.

10.39 p.m.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I want to make one or two comments about the increase order before moving to the main order. The order shows substantial increases to be made by the Government towards rising pay award costs and other increases. It is staggering to find that an extra £2·6 million will have to be found for supplies and services, £2·57 million for property costs, £3·02 million for payments to other bodies and persons and £3·51 million for other unspecified increases in costs.
In view of that, perhaps it is surprising that in the main order the Government say that they have made no provision for any increases in the future. This means that we are to come back at a later stage to decide what the increases will be in 1973–74.
I am not sure that this is the best way to deal with it. It might be better to try to project some of the increases and avoid having to return. We might get better budgeting at local authority level and, if rates are to be monitored, we might see a more efficient system. How-
 

ever, the orders simply reflect the growing costs being faced by local authorities and show how much influence the Government have on local authority expenditure and rates.
Very substantial changes in costs have occurred. The Under-Secretary used the figure of 4·6 per cent. as being the real increase. The figure of 4·7 per cent. has also been quoted. I shall not quarrel about that small difference. I wonder whether we are not confusing increasing expenditure with increasing service. The two things do not necessarily go together. One can have a vast increase in expenditure which is outwith the control of the local authority and the Government can pat themselves on their backs and say that they have taken care of inflation by providing more money—but they may not have provided better services.
Regarding the main order, I am not sure whether it is the perennial refrain "It is not enough" or the Oliver Twist position which I adopt—that of saying, "Can we have more?" Unfortunately, we cannot have more. Therefore, we have to decide how far the moneys provided are sufficient to meet the needs. The Under-Secretary may care to check my calculation, which is that average rates paid in Scotland are increasing at the rate of 6 per cent. per annum, despite the increased sums made available by the Government. Despite the increased proportion of reckonable expenditure, ratepayers are having to find slightly more than 6 per cent. extra each year. Perhaps here we have a reflection of the amount of money which has to be found by the ratepayer instead of the Government.
The Under-Secretary said that in discussing with local authorities the amount of reckonable expenditure there had been agreement. He indicated that there was some agreement about the amount of money to be found from central Government. However, will he clear up the point about the reduction in differentials between Scotland and England and Wales from 8·5 per cent. to 8 per cent.? We understand that this means that ½ per cent. has been transferred to England to help with the early stage of local government reorganisation. That is what some of our
 


local authority treasurers are saying in the Scottish Press.
The statement made to the Convention of the Royal Burghs was that there has been a transfer of money. I have been unable to find out exactly how much this has cost Scotland. Was it necessary to make this reduction in the differential? The Convention of the Royal Burghs was told that most burghs are likely to have rate rises of probably 10 per cent. to 20 per cent. If that is so, it is a very substantial increase in money from the pockets of ratepayers.
Can the Government give an accurate forecast as to how far individual authorities are likely to increase their rate demands? How much of this increased burden on ratepayers is due to the continual derating of industrial premises? We still have the derating in Scotland, whereas England and Wales do not. It can be argued that derating is necessary in order to encourage industry to come to Scotland and that this is worth while. But Scottish ratepayers are beginning to ask whether they should subsidise industry coming to Scotland in two ways—through income tax, which could be argued to be a reasonable proposition in that income tax takes account of the various family circumstances, and through rates, a direct subsidy from the ratepayer, being a very regressive form of taxation.
The local authorities are asked to have restraint in view of the coming reorganisation of local government. On page 5 of the report on the order there is a very curious phrase. It says:
The Secretary of State is concerned that the new local authorities, on taking office, should not find themselves hampered by an unnecessarily high rate of current spending.
I am not sure what that means. It would be disastrous if there were to be some kind of hiatus on local government expenditure in the changeover period between the Bill becoming law and the new authority taking over.
Not enough is being done in local authority work at the moment, and if there is no continuation of progress the new authorities will start off being handicapped rather than hampered. I hope we shall have some clarification of the steps the Secretary of State intends to take to curb what he considers to be
 

excessive spending. I am not thinking specifically of house building, which is not covered in the order. But something must be done about refurbishing the older housing estates. It saddens me to go round some of them. Some were built pre-war, some immediately post-war and some not so long ago. When I see how they are deteriorating I am concerned. I am not sure whether the amount of money specified in the urban programme can be used for this purpose or whether it is intended for something else. Certainly local authorities should be encouraged to bring their older housing schemes up to a modern standard, not just inside the houses, because that can be done by improvement grant, but in the environment also.
The Secretary of State is being niggardly in deducting £1 million for savings in existing services. That cannot be regarded as an inconsequential amount when we consider how much is being provided to help domestic ratepayers according to the Government's announcement of 6th March. In his speech the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he thought the amount would be at least £10 million. If it is more than £10 million, will there be a pro rata increase because the local authorities need as much as they can get.
I do not know whether the figure of savings is meant to be in terms of efficiency or in reduction in expenditure. Previously the figure was £500,000. What monitoring has the Secretary of State done to see whether that £500,000 was actually saved by the authorities, or was it simply a saving in money from the Exchequer? If it is a cut in actual expenditure from central Government and the local authorities have not been able to save by methods of efficiency, the amount being given with one hand to protect the ratepayer is being taken away again with the other hand. We must know whether his exhortations of 2½ years ago to save money have had any effect and whether there has been any reduction in the standards of service.
Services must be got right, because unless they are right there is no opportunity for change. Under the formula laid down by law the Government cannot change the gross amounts except by reason of changes in prices, wages or costs.
May I deal with education expenditure? The Secretary of State says that he has provided for a change in determining the entitlement to free school meals. I believe that there will be a big increase in the costs of food to the schools and I am not satisfied that the Government have paid sufficient attention to this fact. There are continuing increases in the price of food and the Government are responsible for them. Unless they have made sufficient allowance for that in their estimates the schools will be faced with one of two possibilities. Either the people concerned with providing school meals will have to make cuts of some substance in the diet provided, or there will have to be further increases in the charges to those parents whose children take school meals, and that means all the attendant increases in means-tested schemes. We have had enough trouble about those already without going further.
We cannot contemplate a cut in the substance of the meals provided. Recently, we have seen a very worrying recurrence of rickets in our younger population. Rickets is the direct result of poor nutrition. It shows that the nutrition of children in Scotland has not kept pace with what might be regarded as the general increase in the standard of living. It also shows the danger of ending free school milk. We warned the Government at the time about what might happen.
I accept that the mere restoration of free school milk would not by itself prevent rickets. But in terms of a low nutritional diet, the availability of free milk is very important, especially if children are on the threshold of malnutrition. The Government should think in terms of restoring free milk and supplying vitamin D tablets to children, because together they would undoubtedly eradicate this social disease for ever.
One point about rickets which is overlooked is that it highlights the problem that there may be lurking in our school children other diseases of nutrition deficiency. In the view of the Opposition, the Government have no right to gamble with the future health of our children.

Mr. Patrick Wolrige-Gordon: Can the hon. Gentleman give the House any idea how many cases of
 

rickets he knows of among school children in Scotland?

Mr. Hughes: The problem is confined to Glasgow, and the cases which came to light between 1968 and 1970 numbered about 21. But our evidence is that it is deep-seated and that many rickets cases have not been properly diagnosed because of the belief among doctors that the disease has disappeared. It appears that rickets may be endemic, especially among Asian children in Glasgow.
We are dealing with people suffering social deprivation. It has been shown that a quarter of the children—white children—in Glasgow suffering from rickets live in homes with no toilets and no hot water supply and where the average number of inhabitants is seven or eight. This is a serious problem, and the Government should be keeping a close watch on it. Indeed, the time has come for action.
I welcome the provision which allows for the greater employment of social workers. I am very worried about the number of families who land up in courts throughout Scotland and who are evicted from their homes for the non-payment of rent. If we are to prevent that, we need a very strong back-up service. At the moment, many social workers are regarded as no more than rent collectors, which destroys their relationship with their clients. The large case load has to be reduced, and that means employing as many social workers as we can get.
There is a growing need among local authorities taking care of the rehabilitation of patients due to be discharged from mental hospitals. Far too many people still remain in our mental hospitals simply because they have been there so long that there is no one outside to look after them and give them some support. I pay tribute to those Scottish local authorities which provide half-way houses or residential accommodation outside in the community to which people can be discharged from mental hospitals. But a great deal more needs to be done, and I hope that we shall hear from the Minister how far he sees this being a feature of the development of the social work programme.
I turn now to the local health services. I am sorry that the Under-Secre-tary of State for Health and Education is not present. It is stated that provision


has been made for continued expansion of services, particularly for the improvement of home nursing and health visiting services and the further development of the family planning service. I believe that yesterday's announcement by the Secretary of State for Social Services of the intention to change the system which is available in many local authorities for the free provision of family planning services is disastrous. If it is done, I believe that it will destroy services such as those of Aberdeen.
I put on record again how important it is to have a properly developed comprehensive domiciliary and free family planning service. Infant mortality in Aberdeen is 12·3 per thousand live births, which is the lowest rate in the United Kingdom and one of the lowest in the world, if not the lowest. The birth-rate is down from 17·2 per thousand to 14·4 per thousand population. A significant factor is the fall in the number of illegitimate births, and I believe that the number of abortions is significantly lower than it would have been had it not been for the family planning service.
This great improvement has been brought about by close liaison between the Aberdeen Council and the regional hospital board. I believe, as the convenor who piloted the scheme through the council, that it has had great effect. I believe that this courageous decision by Aberdeen has done much to convert practically the whole country to its ideas. In making provision for expansion of the family planning service, the Secretary of State will, we hope, encourage as many local authorities as possible to follow the example of Aberdeen.
It is precisely because lower-income families and people with large families have a health hazard that it is important to have the family planning service. We want a commitment by the Secretary of State that where a local authority does develop a service along the lines of that developed by Aberdeen, now almost universally desired, it will be carried on by the new area health boards in Scotland, irrespective of what is done in England and Wales. I am told that in the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1972 there is provision for the Secretary of State to allow the boards to carry on and develop such schemes and to launch new ones, and I hope that we shall get a com-
 

mitment from the right hon. Gentleman that he will not discourage such services in any way.
More and more we are recognising the regressive nature of rates. We welcome the increases in the domestic element and, for what it is worth, the special temporary provision of the £1 million. But even with all this and the rate rebates, there is still injustice in rates as a method of local taxation. It cannot make sense for one wage earner in a household to meet the rates. More and more services are being transferred from national to local government. Each time it exacerbates the problems of the ratepayers and the whole position to the point where elections are fought not on what kind of services are to be provided but, especially by the Conservatives, on how far they will keep down the rates. This presents a false picture of what local elections are about and leads to an unhealthy state of local democracy and local debate.
The Under-Secretary of State said that this is probably the last occasion on which we shall have a debate in this form because of the changes in local government. I hope that this is also the last occasion on which we shall discuss local rates in this context and that we shall move towards some form of local income tax.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. W. H. K. Baker: Unlike the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Robert Hughes), I shall concentrate on one part of the main order, and that is Table 3 on page 7. The constituency of Banff is a predominantly rural area and cannot therefore benefit from the formula laid down. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State knows from correspondence and talks I have had with him, the present formula has worked adversely against Banff.
I do not intend to go into detail, except to say that through an accident of history the county of Banff has 11 small burghs, none of which is within the statutory meaning of "small burghs", ranging in population from 750 to 7,500, and seven of which have a population of under 1,700. Consequently, compared with other counties, Banff has done badly in the distribution of the rate support grant.
To give one brief comparison, since the last order was discussed in the House, the proportion of grant received by the county of Banff relative to local expenditure was 57½ per cent., whereas in Kincardine, which is similar to the county of Banff, the proportion of grant relative to expenditure was 73 per cent.
Under the present formula, which is continued in the order, the ratio of landward to burghal population is taken into account, and in general it may fairly be said that the greater the burghal population relative to the landward population the greater is the grant that is received. In the county of Banff, as less than 52½ per cent. of the total population—40 per cent. in fact—is resident in the landward area, no percentage is added back under Column (2) of Table 3. That works to the great disadvantage of Banff.
I ask my hon. Friend and the Government to ensure that after the passing of the current legislation whatever formula is adopted will not discriminate adversely as it does in my constituency.

11.3 p.m.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: I am not surprised that the Under-Secretary of State took so little time to develop his defence of the Rate Support Grant (Increase) (Scotland) Order 1973. It must be very embarrassing for him, particularly when we recall the speeches he made in opposition, when the Labour Government first introduced these orders, in which he went through his ritual fire dance.
We see the order as evidence of the Government's inadequate handling of the country's economic performance. If ever there were a damning document on the last year of the Government's performance it is this order. To understand why the Under-Secretary of State skipped over it so quickly one has only to look at the increases in the original estimates, not to improve services but just to keep pace with rising prices, wages and costs. The order is a damning indictment of the twist in the inflationary spiral which the Government by their indolence, and sometimes by their active intervention, have caused in the last two years— particularly last year. I will not spend as much time as hon. Gentlemen did in Opposition on the increase order. It
 

speaks for itself. Rather I come to the defects in the substantive order as it stands.
My first comment relates to the Under-Secretary's remark, which I did not wholly comprehend, that we should pay more attention to the first year of the substantive order and not be too concerned about the second. I know that the Local Government (Scotland) Bill, if and when it passes through the House, is bound to lead to changes in the presentation of these matters. Nevertheless, I cannot understand entirely why we should disregard the second year or not pay so much attention to it and that we should concentrate on the first year. I do not comprehend these comments. Local government will still exist in its present form in the financial year 1974–75. The services must continue. Chamberlains and county treasurers must know where they stand. I do not understand why we should disregard the second year. It is a bit beyond me. I should like the hon. Gentleman to develop that point.

Mr. Younger: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman. I was pointing out that the Bill, as drafted, provides that any existing rate support grant order shall cease to have effect in respect of the year 1974–75. I was merely saying that this 1974–75 part will cease to have effect. Assuming, as we hope, that the Local Government (Scotland) Bill is passed, there will have to be a new order which we can start discussing from scratch.

Dr. Mabon: We shall not start from scratch, with respect. Obviously this second year in the order is bound to be picked up substantially as it stands. I should be astonished to hear that the order that will replace the second year of this order will in any single item be revolutionary to the extent of cutting it out substantially or of increasing it— doubling it or something like that. It can be only a marginal difference unless we are to have some significant changes of policy, about which we would like to hear.
We do not want to pass the order and waste everybody's time talking about the second year if it is not relevant. I regard it as extremely relevant, so I will not take the point that the figures presented here are without significance. I think that they are significant. I should like later in my
 


remarks to give some illustrations of my concern about some items.
Secondly, I presume that we shall be discussing the new order this time next year—I should be grateful if the Under-Secretary would confirm that—or will it be a month earlier, as this order has been somewhat delayed? It may be that with the new order next year the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. W. H. K. Baker) will at last be put out of his misery. The poor soul has been making speeches as similar to that we heard him make tonight on every rate support grant order since the new system was introduced in 1966.
I know the reply that the hon. Gentleman will get. I read it to the House on at least three occasions. I know the problem. I agree that under the present structure there is no way out of the Banff problem. But Banff still gets substantially higher grants than some counties in other parts of Scotland which are supposed to be better off—for example, the central lowland belt counties. Yet many of the social problems of Scotland are in these areas—indeed, in some of the big cities such as Aberdeen and Dundee— which get grants less pro rata than Banff. I do not seek to defend or help the Under-Secretary with his brief. I hope that we will not have the hon. Member for Banff legitimately making a similar speech next year. I hope that with the emergence of districts and the disappearance of burghs these accounting matters will not arise.
My third comment relates to the Under-Secretary's reference to increases of 1 per cent. and ½ per cent. in the major orders. He did not mention that the 1 per cent. was ours and that the ½ per cent. was his. The first substantive order that came after the election of the present Government in the spring of 1971 cut the understood increase based on the 1966 Act of 1 per cent. a year by ½ per cent. That increase—I am not sure I am being a little generous to the Government—took us back to what we lost in the early years of the present Government. We are gaining nothing. If the Government had let progress continue, as was intended, we would be standing where we are.
The cut in 1971 cut the aid to the domestic ratepayer. The increase should
 

have been twice what it was. In the last grant, as we see from the increase order, the domestic rate for the two years has been 11p and 12p. It is to be noted that in this substantive rate support grant order the domestic rate relief is 15p for both years. That is not for one year and rising in the following year but for both years.
I cannot accept that we should disregard the second order as something fictional. It is not, unless it is the intention in the next revised order which takes up the second order to increase the domestic rate relief by at least another lp or 2p. We shall not necessarily accept 15p for both years.
We are standing absolutely pat for both years. People are looking to the year after next to see what will be the position under the new system and under the present grant. The comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Robert Hughes) about the burden carried by Scottish domestic ratepayers vis-à-vis other ratepayers is valid. In the last Labour Government's term of office we had to consider whether it was a fair point to agree to keep industrial derating at 15 per cent. or to have an industrial re-rating.
I should like to know what would be the valuation of industry in Scotland and what would be the likely increase. What would be the rate, taking the average rate in Scotland, if we re-rated industry? How much would it mean in terms of income to the local authorities if we re-rated industry? I am not proposing that that should be done but I should like to know the result. How would the rating of Scottish industry be placed vis-à-vis the rating of English industry? I am speaking entirely off the cuff, but I think that in our time the figure was something like 12p in Scotland which after re-rating would have been 20p, as against England's 17p. I recall those figures from memory. What would our disadvantage be in Scotland if we re-rated industry?
The same applies to agricultural re-rating. I should like to know how much we are losing, taking the average poundage in Scotland, as against the estimate of the valuation of agricultural subjects— namely, agricultural land. What are we losing from 100 per cent. agricultural subjects?
These are valid points in relation to the picture presented by the rate support grant order. If local government could raise all the money it needed, it would not have to go to the State and these orders would not be required. It would be healthier if that were the case.
Paragraph 10 of the Rate Support Grant (Scotland) Order, 1973, says
The aggregate amount of Exchequer grant for 1973–74 is thus £395·80 million … and for 1974–75 it is £419·61 million.
My hon. Friend has rightly made the point that, judging from these figures and Appendix A, there is to be a reduction for efficiency and economy measures of £1 million, which to some extent offsets the £1 million which we are given in the second year when the efficiency reduction will carry on.
I can remember arguments about this. This is clearly a sop by the Scottish Civil Service to convince the Treasury that we are trying to be economical in local government. That is a reasonable goal, but this is a fiction, a piece of nonsense. I can almost see the greybeards of the local authority associations looking across the desk at the Minister and agreeing to this £1 million reduction, knowing that the sums involved are hundreds of millions of pounds. What does it matter? The Government should have abandoned this fiction. We have had enough experience of it.
After all, this is £1 million given by no arithmetical logic but by the sheer political expediency of the Prime Minister trying to treat Scotland the same as England, where local authorities were undergoing a considerable revaluation. We should not have had this Peter-Paul exercise of taking away £1 million in one year and giving £1 million in another respect, and in the next year taking away £1 million and not giving anything.
Why is it that, in the second year, according to Appendix B, there is no item for the additional works programme for roads? Does that presage some act of policy? Remember, we cannot restore this cut in an increase order, although we could restore it in the substantive order next year. Perhaps the Minister is thinking of that. Why is nothing provided there?
Why are rate rebates fixed at the same level for both years? Rates will
 

rise. Will somebody suggest to me that rates will fall? The burden of rates on the domestic ratepayer, even with relief, will rise. Am I to assume that rate rebates will not rise? I do not see the logic of that. Why is the figure precisely the same in both years?
As for improvement grants for houses, do I take it that this figure of £2,500,000 in the second column represents the height of the charges of the improvement grants? In that year, in April, 1974, the improvement grant scheme will end, so I assume that the tapering-off will take place about then. Or will this figure rise still more? I should like to do some calculation of my own as to what is likely to happen in the following years and whether there is not perhaps a case for going on with the improvement grant scheme, which has been grudgingly extended in various bits and pieces, even if it has to be by legislation. Although the Minister has said that it was not wise, they have had to extend improvement grants. I should like to see them carrying on later than April 1974.
These are my criticisms, and I should be obliged if the Minister would answer them. I am most keen to know whether next year's order, in picking up all these points, will simply flow from this one, or whether the Under-Secretary is saying, "Look out—there will be substantial changes in policy. That is why an order will be needed next year, just as much as it would if we were not discussing the Local Government (Scotland) Bill."

11.20 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Wolrige-Gordon: Very united criticisms they were, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was a little surprised at the muted tone of the speech of the hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon), until he told us how many times, when he was on the Government Front Bench, he had made the speech that my hon. Friend made tonight. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that he did not make his speech half as well as my hon. Friend did.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Robert Hughes) was undecided about what criticisms to make. He did not know whether to be Oliver Twist or
 


Santa Clause. I feel that when the Opposition cannot make up their minds the truth is that they broadly support the Government's policy and think that they have made a fair judgment of the situation.
The hon. Gentleman covered many aspects, from mental health to rickets, and brought in family planning. Points of view vary on these topics, but when the hon. Gentleman talks about ratepayers being concerned about industrial derating and continuing to carry industry in that way, I must point out that many of them are concerned, too, about providing a free family planning service on the rates.
The main point made by my hon. Friend, and one which I should like to emphasise, is the enormous amount of the Exchequer contribution to the rate expenditure. I am sorry that the representative of the Scottish National Party has left the Chamber because I am sometimes tempted to ask from where the tremendous amount of money involved should come.
In my part of the country we are particularly concerned about the large increase in capital expenditure by local authorities as a result of boom conditions in the north-east of Scotland. It is worth driving home the fact that of the greatly increased expenditure the Exchequer produces about 68 per cent. and the householder only about 13 per cent. Nevertheless, the burden is considerable, and I hope that the Government have firmly in mind the burden of increased expenditure from this kind of activity.
I am always advised that the local authorities will reap the benefit in increased income in the years ahead, but that is not the immediate consideration which affects ratepayers who have to find their share—admittedly a small share—of the increased expenditure now, and I reinforce that point tonight.

11.23 p.m.

Mr. Frank McElhone: I shall not endeavour to take up the points made in the speech of the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Wolrige-Gordon). Unfortunately, time prevents my following up the remarks made in the forthright speeches of
 

my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Robert Hughes) and my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon), who displayed all the expertise and knowledge that one would expect from a distinguished former Minister of State. In a wide-ranging speech he managed to give us the information which the Government do not have. I say that with respect to the Under-Secretary of State, who opened the debate.
In such an important debate as this an hour and a half, allowing for Front Bench speeches, is totally inadequate to cover the whole of Scotland, especially at a time of local government reorganisation. Therefore, looking at the clock, and in order to allow some time for a reply to the comments of my hon. Friends and of myself, I shall truncate my remarks and not develop the argument in the way that I should have liked to do.
In the Glasgow Herald of 6th February the Glasgow City Treasurer, who led a deputation to the Secretary of State for Scotland, commented upon the changes in the rate support grant. Talking about differentials, she said that Scotland normally received 8· per cent. but that this had been reduced to 8 per cent. The reason for the reduction was that the other 0·5 per cent. was to go to England and Wales to pay for the reorganisation of local government.
It is a strange feature of the Scottish rate support grant that we have to have a reduction in order to pay for the reorganisation of local government in England and Wales. We should also remember that the largest authority in the whole of England—the Greater London Council—was not affected by reorganisation. But Glasgow is losing £500,000 in 1973–74. That would not be so bad, but we recall the speech made by the Secretary of State for Scotland in April 1970 at Dunblane, when he warned that this might happen, and said that we must guard against it. After his making that pious speech on local government finance we find the very same thing happening under his Government.
Scotland is losing £2·9 million in rate support grant, which is going to England and Wales. The Minister must answer this point, because it has never been answered. It was not answered when
 


the allegations were made by the City Treasurer of Glasgow. I gather that it cannot be disputed that Glasgow, and particularly the Strathclyde region, suffered from revaluation. This fact has not been taken into account in recent rate support grant statements. Because of the increased valuations Strathclyde would lose about £4 million, and the figure for Glasgow, at the time was £1 million, in addition to the £500,000 that it is losing in 1973–74. Because of the decreased differential Glasgow does not come out too well.
One always pays regard to what the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. W. H. K. Baker) has to say. He is concerned mainly with Banff, but the Minister will recognise that the problems of Glasgow and other urban areas in Scotland are as serious, if not more serious. When one reads the order and listens to the Minister talking about the specific function in respect of social work, and expressing the hope that the House will be pleased to learn that the rate support grant has been increased by 9·6 per cent. in that respect, one realises that he has been ill-advised, or is totally unaware of the seriousness of the social problem in Scotland.
Many families are doing "moonlights", families who have been forced to do so through debts, often incurred by bad domestic management. There are about 40 cases a week in Glasgow. The Glasgow Housing Manager reports:
There has been an increase of 600 of these incidents in just 12 months compared with previous years.
In my maiden speech I referred to the 2,000 families in Glasgow who have absconded or been ejected for non-payment of rent. This figure has escalated as a result of the burden on the social work department. On the last occasion when I spoke in a rate support grant debate we were told that there was a 25 per cent. increase.

Mr. Ian MacArthur: I have great sympathy for people in this position. Does not the hon. Member therefore welcome the Housing Act, which will make it possible for tenants who cannot afford to pay much rent to pay much less than before, and in many cases none at all?

Mr. McElhone: I hate to see the hon. Member being continually wrong in his interventions in my speeches. He, as well as anyone—because he was with me and many others who sat through the long debates on the Housing Bill—knows that the Housing Act will be responsible for making many more families "moonlight". The Minister knows very well, and many other people in local government know, that this is why so many local authorities refused to implement the Act. The hon. Member well knows, as does the Undersecretary of State that because of the substantial rent increases arising from the Housing (Financial Provisions) Scotland Act hundreds of families each year will have to "moonlight" from their homes.

Mr. MacArthur: Nonsense.

Mr. McElhone: This is bound to cause great social problems, and arises from one of the most vicious pieces of legislation to come from any Government in postwar years.
The Minister said that there was to be an increase of 96 per cent. in the provision for home help. I have raised this matter several times over the last few years. If the Minister examines the expenditure he will see that most social work authorities are under-staffed and do not provide proper facilities. In terms of expenditure on salaries for those who come from the colleges, it must be said that not one extra home help will result from the figure of 9·6 per cent. of expenditure on the social services.
I could go on at length about the inadequacy of extra rate support grant in the way of fire services. Fire prevention is of crucial importance in Glasgow, and I should like to see Scottish local authorities encouraged to introduce computers and extremely up-to-date fire prevention methods. The situation in Glasgow is critical; indeed, the situation in the whole of Scotland is causing some concern to fire authorities.
In Appendix II there is reference to "Other services". That includes housing improvements, weights and measures, youth employment and sheltered workshops. The amount of extra grant given to these other services is shocking. The Minister must be aware of the high level of youth unemployment, particularly in Glasgow. About 32 per cent. of all unemployed school leavers are to be found
 


in Glasgow, and yet that important area of need is lumped in with "Other services". In the last three or four years the weights and measures department has taken on an increasing work load, much of which has arisen from the operation of the description of goods legislation. The department is working at full capacity and yet there is no extra capacity for the department to protect the consumer in fully implementing the legislation.
Sheltered workshops are also lumped in with "Other services", and yet constantly on Scottish television advertisements are screened calling for disabled people to apply for jobs. It is surely hypocritical to show those advertisements to disabled people when the order provides such paltry sums to meet the provision in this respect.
I give credit to the Under-Secretary of State for Development, Scottish Office, as the Hans Christian Andersen of the Government. He can certainly spin a fairy tale. When we consider the effects of inflation and the onset of the provisions of phase 2 of the Government's prices and incomes policy, we must realise that the first year of its operation will be important. I am afraid that these orders do not augur well for the reorganisation of local government which is about to take place as a result of legislation now passing through the House. I am very depressed about the situation.

11.34 p.m.

Mr. Harry Ewing: I am grateful to take advantage of the few moments left to me at the end of this debate to make a few general points on these orders. I wish to make some constituency points, because in introducing them the Minister said that the increase takes account of changes in population shift in population. My constituency point relates to educational facilities in the county of Stirlingshire, particularly in the Falkirk-Grangemouth area, where the population —though I take no credit for it—has increased beyond all reasonable bounds.
Whereas the population in all other parts of the country is declining year after year, the population in the Falkirk-Grangemouth area is increasing. There
 

is a corresponding effect on the educational programme, the school building programme, and the ability to attract teachers. The Minister must know that the parents in the area are seriously concerned. This is not the fault of the education authority. Almost every new school that is built rapidly becomes inadequate for its area. Although the responsible Minister is not present tonight I hope that the Under-Secretary will draw my remarks to his attention. I know that representations are being made by the Stirling County Council. My hon. Friends and I who represent the county will be assisting in these representations to see whether we can convince the Department that some extra allocation ought to be made to meet this serious problem.
I regret the application of an average growth rate figure to social work, however generous such a figure may be. If there is any area in which there ought to be rapid growth it is social work. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Gorbals in this Parliament (Mr. McElhone)—Queen's Park in the next— pointed out, there is a growing need for the expansion of the home help service. Almost every area of social work, including the work of children's panels, needs expanding. All are suffering from a lack of finance. I recognise the problems here. Whenever anyone gets involved in social work and suggests that more money should be spent there is an immediate outcry. People call us do-gooders and say we ought to be cutting expenditure rather than raising it. That is not my view, and it is not a view taken by most people.
The Minister ought to have said more about the £1 million to be deducted for increased efficiency. It is not good enough for him to say that local authorities ought to eliminate unnecessary spending without giving examples of what he considers to be unnecessary expenditure. The Minister said that rate increases in the coming financial year would broadly conform to the Government's counter-inflation policy. Why has a limit not been applied? If the policy is related to the attack on inflation it is surely right to say that the Government have applied limits in other areas. Why, when it comes to rate increases, have they not done so?
I conclude with a reference to industrial derating, which concerns all of


us. None of us is quite sure about the impact of industrial derating on the attraction on industry to Scotland. There are varying illustrations of the impact of industrial derating on local rates and the effect if industry were required to pay the full rate, or even 75 per cent. of the rate. I do not know which would be the better. But this matter requires study.
When owner-occupier rates were applied in the mid-1950s, when owner rates were abolished and the rates were applied to the occupier, the promise was given that industrial derating would stop and that, therefore, the domestic ratepayer and, to a lesser extent, the commercial ratepayer, would have a smaller burden. I am not hanging my coat on any nail, but I join my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) in asking the Minister to look seriously at this question. It is now giving cause for concern in Scotland.

11.41 p.m.

Mr. Younger: With the leave of the House, I shall try to answer as many as possible of the questions which have been raised. I am grateful to hon. Members of the Opposition for allowing me the time to do so. If I answer them speedily, they will understand that it is with the object of covering as many points as possible.
If Oliver Twist had looked around the House this evening he would have considered himself a backward, shy and retiring lad compared with some hon. Members of the Opposition.
Let us look briefly at the question of relativities between Scotland and England. Under the first order, made in 1967, the rate support grant system started with the Scottish ratepayer finding £37·50 towards every £100 of reckon-able expenditure. By 1973–74 the Scottish ratepayer will be finding £32 towards every £100 of reckonable expenditure. Over the years changes in the grant rate have reduced the ratepayer's contribution by £5·50—that is, by 14·7 per cent.
If hon. Members care to examine the English orders and reports they will find that over the same period the English ratepayer's share has fallen from £46 to £40 out of every £100 of reckonable

expenditure; that is a fall of 13 per cent. Seen in this way, surely, it is clear not only that the Scottish ratepayer makes a smaller contribution to reckonable expenditure but that he has benefited more, not less, from the successive changes in the grant percentages.
I make the same point again in a different way. A 1 per cent. grant increase is a greater benefit to the Scottish ratepayer than to the English ratepayer. As a proportion of the reckonable expenditure falling on the rates, the 2 per cent. grant increase in Scotland for this year and next year is equal to the 2½ per cent. increase in England for the same two years.
However, I sense the concern in the House that the rate of grant should be at a level which is quite fair as between Scotland and England. Before the next rate support grant order is put before the House I shall look carefully at the differential between the two countries. That means not that it will be increased but that we shall satisfy ourselves about the relative levels of grant. In this we must take account of a number of factors, of which one is the impending reorganisation of local government. The costs of reorganisation will be taken into account in the Scottish settlement for 1974–75 in the same way as was done for England and Wales in respect of 1973–74.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Robert Hughes) mentioned a number of points, one of which was the efficiency cut. That was mentioned also by the hon. Member for Greenock (Dr Dickson Mabon). The report shows a token reduction of £1 million. The point of this is to lay before local authorities collectively a specific objective in their search for savings. We should keep this matter in perspective. A saving of £1 million is about one-sixth of 1 per cent. of the total estimate of expenditure.
I cannot possibly offer detailed suggestions as to where the savings should be found, as I was asked to do. That should be left to the authorities. In the numerous bodies represented by the expenditure of about £600 million, on which the order is based, there must surely exist a small margin of potential saving. Few local authority treasurers would categorically state that there is no scope within their organisations for
 


marginal savings without noticeably affecting the standard of services. I cannot say categorically either that any particular rate of saving called for in past years has been achieved, or, equally, that it has not been achieved. That would require a totally disproportionate amount of monitoring to get the facts.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Robert Hughes) asked about changes in the assessment of parental income for free school meals. Provision has been made for the additional cost to authorities arising from the change in assessment of parental income for free meals purposes. We have deferred an increase in the cost of meals from 12p to 14p which was due to come into effect on 1st April as part of the counter-inflation policy.
The hon. Member also asked about the urban programme. It is provided under the Local Government Grants (Social Need) Act 1969 for the payment of grants toward local authority expenditure on projects designed to benefit areas of special social need. Its aim is to enable local authorities to take quick action by way of modest building schemes and certain projects to improve the facilities and services available in areas displaying symptoms of serious social deprivation.
The hon. Member asked about average rates increases and suggested that they might be approximating 6 per cent.

Mr. Robert Hughes: The point is that the average increase in rates over the whole of Scotland was at the rate of 6 per cent. per annum. What will happen in the different areas?

Mr. Younger: I cannot give that breakdown, but the hon. Member's figure of 6 per cent. is broadly correct, taking one year with another. As I said in a reply to a recent Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor), this growth compares with the considerably greater growth in earnings over the same period.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the distribution of the additional £1 million. It has been said that this money should have been given to ratepayers who are worst affected by the revaluation. This is not the first time that the Scottish counterpart of a sum used in England

and Wales to provide transitional relief has been applied directly to the block grant. It was done in relation to general grant after the revaluation of 1963. If compensating individual ratepayers in the actual year of revaluation is a difficult administrative task for rating authorities, compensating them two years later would be almost impossible. For one thing, a great deal of property which did not exist in 1970–71 is now occupied and rates are being paid on it.
The hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) asked me whether the 15p figure in the domestic element was for both years. I can assure him that nothing is finally decided about 1974–75. We could, however, be looking at this question in a year's time against a background of other changes in the distribution of expenditure between the ratepayer and the taxpayer. It is much wiser to leave our options open for the second of these two years, which is what I was indicating we were trying to do.
The hon. Member also asked why rate rebates in the two years should be put at the same figure. The answer is that a new basis has to be calculated for rate rebates. There is no realistic basis for estimating what rate rebate grants will have to be made under the existing scheme for 1974–75. Under the proposals in the Local Government (Scotland) Bill the new scheme will operate and the grant will no longer be deductible from the aggregate of rate support grant, which it has been in the past.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Gorbals (Mr. McElhone), in a speech which dealt mainly with the problems of social work in which he is deeply interested, asked about rating problems for Glasgow. All is not as difficult as he feels it to be. The financial problems of Glasgow are taken into account. They have been considered on many occasions in connection with the grant distribution discussions, and the local authority associations have accepted the need for a special weighting to protect authorities in this position. In the coming year, Glasgow will receive grant of more than £3 million by virtue of the special weighting in the formula for distribution of the needs element, a weighting directly related to loss of population. Between them, the rest of the authorities will receive £3 million less than would be the case without this weighting. This is a significant
 


contribution to Glasgow's special problem.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about home helps. Substantial additional provision for home helps has been made in the settlement, with the agreement of the local authority representatives. This is over and above the additions put forward for newly-appointed trained social work staff.
I have been asked a number of questions about social work services. I wholly share the views of those who seek adequate social work provision by local authorities. Authorities themselves are very conscious of this need. It is for this reason that the rate of growth in this service is substantially higher than that for services as a whole. In current expenditure, the growth rate between 1972–73 and 1973–74 has been forecast as 1209 per cent., and that between 1973–74 and 1974–75 as 9·34 per cent. These forecasts take into account the abolition of the minimum charge for home helps which has had the effect of increasing the reckonable expenditure on the service over the two years in question by 3·1 per cent. and 0·3 per cent. respectively. But, even after deducting these percentages, we are left with net percentage increases of 8·96 and 9·34.
I believe that these rate support grant settlements are wholly reasonable and generous for all the needs that local authorities expect to have to put in train in the next year or two. I pay tribute to the local authorities for their help in these discussions every year. As a result, we have managed to meet almost all the requests that they have made to us.
I hope very much that the House will agree to pass these orders.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Rate Support Grant (Increase) (Scotland) Order 1973, a copy of which was laid before this House on 16th March, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Rate Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1973, a copy of which was laid before this House on 16th March, be approved.—[Mr. Younger.]

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jopling.]

INDUSTRIAL DISPERSAL

11.53 p.m.

Mr. William Molloy: The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will be aware that over the past two years I have raised the question of industrial undertakings leaving the West Middlesex area in general and the Ealing area in particular. In my view the evidence that I have submitted from time to time about firms leaving the area has not been taken sufficiently seriously, with the result that in recent weeks we have begun to hear hon. Members who represent London constituencies expressing their concern about the growing number of jobless people in the Greater London area.
There is a feeling of grave apprehension in the West Middlesex area, especially in the boroughs of Ealing, Hillingdon, Brent and Hounslow. I know that the Minister will produce figures showing that there does not seem to be any great degree of unemployment, that there are plenty of jobs available, and that the situation is not as bad as some have been saying in the past two years. But the evidence is overwhelming, and I plead with the hon. Gentleman to recognise the situation which is developing in the West Middlesex area.
In the past two years no fewer than 20 firms have left the area, most of them light engineering establishments. This has caused a great deal of upset in the community in general and in all aspects of community life in the London borough of Ealing and in the neighbouring boroughs to which I have referred. Only recently, the Tory-controlled Greater London Council made an appeal to the Government to take seriously this very dangerous development of industrial undertakings leaving the West Middlesex area in particular.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Is my hon. Friend aware that the GLC has not only expressed concern but has asked to see the Secretary of State? At a meeting on 27th February, it asked the Secretary of State
… to receive a deputation of members … which would express the Councils concern at the excessive rate of industrial decline in London and press for action …
 


Is my hon. Friend aware that 198 acres in the borough which used to hold industry hace lost it over the last five years?

Mr. Molloy: That is the whole point. The Government seem to be undisturbed, because the statistics suit their argument. I am talking not about statistics but about people—about skilled craftsmen and their families. That is much more important than trying to square numbers and statistics. We are talking of people and communities, and the contribution they can make to their boroughs and to the country.
Only last week, the regional organiser of the Amalagamated Union of Engineering Workers received a letter telling him that yet another firm in my constituency was moving out. Let us, therefore, not hear from the Under-secretary of State the argument about figures of unemployment and underemployment and so on. I ask him, in conjunction with the trade unions, the borough councillors and the Tory-controlled GLC, to take serious cognisance of this dangerous development of industrial undertakings moving from the West Middlesex area.
There are industrialists who say that they need labour in the area and cannot get it. On the other hand, trade unions are expressing concern at the growth in the number of jobless in Ealing and the West Middlesex area. It may well be that they are both stating the truth as they see it. Very often, when a light engineering firm moves out to another part of the country a skilled artisan, such as an engineer or lathe operator, or a fitter and turner, does not feel that he can pick up his roots and go with it. For example, he may have a mortgage only half paid off. The alternative, for him, is to find other employment locally. There is alternative employment, but, as one man put it to me, "I am not enamoured, as a skilled engineer, of becoming a janitor or doorman". Such a man feels it an affront to his skill that he should be offered such alternative employment as well as a serious drop in his standard of living—because it does not provide the same level of remuneration.
This argument can also be applied to women, many of whom have become

unemployed because firms have moved out of the area. I could give examples of women who are skilled electronic workers but who are now unemployed. Of course, there is also alternative work for them—as lavatory cleaners and charladies. But, having trained to become, and having used their intelligence as, skilled electronic workers, they, too, are not particularly enamoured of a drop in their standard of living in such jobs as they are being offered. I say nothing in denigration of charladies. They are important people. But when a trained man or woman who has worked for a firm for 20 years as a skilled artisan has to take an unskilled job because his firm moves away it is an affront to his dignity.
The movement of industry out of the West Middlesex area is a matter of serious concern. In my constituency is situated the Perivale Industrial Estate, which was designed in the late 1930s. The industrialists find that they cannot expand. We get the worst of both worlds. The industrialists who want to expand cannot do so, and have to move out of the area.
When men aged between 45 and 50 are asked to pull up their roots and move to another part of the country it causes a family crisis. Most people like to live near their jobs. They do not want to be harassed by travelling to and from work. The Prime Minister, on leaving this workshop a few months ago, was irritated because he could not quickly get to No. 10 Downing Street. The same applies to the working man. It is no proper life for a man to be with his family only at weekends. What is good enough for the Prime Minister is good enough for the working men in my constituency. They have a right to ask that firms should stay in their area.
In the cold, analytical language of the statistician, a firm decides to move out of the area and employees are rendered redundant. But this means a man losing his job, having to tell his wife, having to discuss with her how to pay off the mortgage, how to find enough money to clothe the children, and how little Johnnie is to become an apprentice. Statisticians do not know about those things. We must not become a nation ruled by statisticians who regard people as numbers. I am reminded of the vulgar attitude of some Army officers, who refer
 


to other ranks as "bods" and do not realise that they are husbands. fathers and brothers.
The Rockware Company in my constituency has a first-class productivity record and has had no industrial confrontations. The shareholders have been happy because the increased productivity has meant a better return on their money. In return, the skilled workmen have received increased wages and have had nothing much to worry about. But because of the possibility of nefarious action by share strippers the company has had to consider how it can avoid being stripped.
It has decided that if it gets out of Ealing and sells the land on which the factory stands to developers it can make the equivalent of two decades' profit on its present output. But the nation has lost all the skilled work of the men who produce milk bottles, glass pipettes for hospitals, and so on. These men have devoted their working lives to what they thought was a good firm. Indeed, even middle management has been outraged by the company's attitude.
This kind of attitude is growing all over London. I wonder what would be said if a firm to which I have referred were involved in some very important part of Britain's defence. Would we allow the land developers and the share strippers to come in and close a factory that was making a vital contribution to the Royal Air Force, the Navy, or the Army? Of course not. It would be a grave mistake to assume that ordinary working men do not pose these arguments to themselves. The manner in which this operation was carried out was disgraceful.
The Minister for Industrial Development wrote to me about this matter. In his letter he said:
Because of the urgency of the decision to close it was concluded that no prior consultation with the company's employees, as recommended by paragraph 44 of the Industrial Relations Code of Practice was possible.
The decision to close this factory was made three months after I had toured it and been told that the company hoped to enlarge it. Indeed, school leavers had been encouraged to start work with the company.
What reply can we give to workmen when they ask: who can we trust? A strike or some other form of confrontation always hits the headlines. The Government are prepared to bash the trade unions at any time. Will they now have the guts and the courage to tell this firm that its reprehensible behaviour will not be tolerated? When it comes to applying the industrial relations code of practice to the employers, what do we find? All is forgiven, irrespective of how appalling the decision might be.
This aspect was quoted by The Times and the Financial Times. I recommend the Minister to read what is said in those newspapers, because they can hardly be described as extreme. Their comments about the Rockware incident show that they are as apprehensive as the rest of us. Such appalling behaviour should be halted.
The borough councils of Ealing, Hounslow and Hillingdon, the chambers of commerce and the local Members of Parliament, because of this grievous situation, which is getting worse every day, want to set up consultative machinery to examine the social effects of closures and job availability. They ask whether the Minister will be prepared to assist them in setting up this consultative machinery to examine all the problems that arise when it is inevitable that firms will leave the area, and to see what can be done to ease the situation. When this request is put to him I hope that the Minister will give it the attention that it deserves. We must make it clear that we cannot go along with this dangerous and evil philosophy of putting profit before people.
The London borough of Ealing is in danger of limping on one foot. Working people in Ealing and West Middlesex wish to contribute, with their skills and abilities, to the welfare of their borough and country. Parliament must help to remove this threat to their livelihoods. By so doing it will make a tremendous contribution to West Middlesex in particular and help to preserve the skills of our artisans, of which we are so proud.

12.10 a.m

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Anthony Grant): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) for raising this matter. It is fair to point out that
 


he has pursued his case—not that I agree with it entirely—assiduously and for a long time. The hon. Gentleman's constituency and mine are almost adjacent to each other, so I have an interest in this matter. Perhaps he will allow me to say that as a Minister I probably have made more ministerial visits to the various regions than any other Minister. I have had an opportunity to consider unemployment on a national basis. It is in that context that we must consider the problem.
The hon. Gentleman expresses a dislike for statistics. He reminds me of the man who was happy to use statistics and welcomed them if they supported his case, but condemned them if they did not. I shall have to use some statistics, as that is the only way in which the House can judge the position.
My Department and I will certainly give careful and sympathetic consideration to any proposals that come from the group to which the hon. Gentleman referred. We will consider carefully proposals and suggestions made by the GLC. It is our desire to work and discuss as much as possible with all bodies, to resolve the matter.
I shall first make a brief general observation. We probably all agree that industrial expansion is necessary to the economic survival of this country and that all should be done to encourage industry to compete in the new and expanding markets now available. I am confident that British industry will seize these wider markets.
Wider markets also bring increased competition, and the United Kingdom industry generally is in the throes of reorganisation to improve efficiency and to make its prices competitive. This reorganisation entails the restructuring of certain industries, like steel, and the nationalisation of others. The latter may take a number of forms, and is dependent solely on the commercial judgment of each company
The Government do not seek to influence the judgment of any company in the private sector in this respect, save in the capacity of protecting public money where it is invested. They do, however, supply one of the factors on which these judgments are taken. I refer to the Govern-

ment's regional industrial policy, with which the House is familiar. In the sense that this ensures industrial growth in the less fortunate areas of the country, I cannot pretend that the Government find such decisions unwelcome, but I must emphasise that the Government aim is expansion of new industries in these areas rather than the attraction of existing industry from the non-assisted areas.
It is sometimes suggested that there is a disincentive to invest or expand in the non-assisted areas such as the South-East. That I do not believe to be true. The new 100 per cent. free depreciation allowance and the 40 per cent. initial allowance for industrial buildings represent for the first time an incentive to industry to invest throughout the country and not just in the assisted areas. It is not generally realised that in a non-assisted area such as West Middlesex a manufacturer can recover, in net present value terms, 32 per cent. of his outlay on plant and machinery and buildings for a typical industrial project. This is almost the best-ever incentive that has been available.
We stand by the policy which we have expressed on the issue of industrial development certificates on several occasions. They are no longer required in the development areas for new projects with an area of less than 15,000 square feet, or 10,000 square feet in the South-East. When we took office the limit was 3,000 square feet. We have adopted a much more flexible policy. For existing factory premises no certificate is required. Where the project is judged to be mobile —that is, equally capable of being sited viably in an assisted area—a certificate is normally withheld unless there are other overriding considerations. But where an application concerns modernisation or expansion of existing plant which is not readily capable of transfer, a certificate is usually granted. In practice, 90 per cent. of IDC applications, in terms of jobs involved, were approved in 1972 and the first two months of 1973. In the years 1968 and 1969, the comparable figure was 80 per cent. During last year and the first two months of this year a total of 49 projects were approved, and in the West Middlesex area there were only five refusals during this time.
I must now refer to the case of Rockware Glass. The group involved owns
 


five factories—one at Greenford, two in Yorkshire, one in Lancashire and one in Irvine, in Scotland. The staff number 7,700, of whom 1,266 are employed at Greenford on the manufacture of glass bottles. This last activity has been under review by the company for some time, in view of increasing competition from containers made in other materials, but a decision was deferred when productivity at the factory improved after discussions with the unions involved.
Unfortunately, another development occurred which made a decision imperative without prior consultation with the unions. The company decided to act in the common interest of the shareholders and the employees at its other four factories by closing the factory at Greenford and transferring the work to its other factories. The company says that it regrets that it was unable to discuss the decision with representatives of employees at the Greenford factory in accordance with paragraphs 44–46 of the Government's code of industrial relations practice, but it says that publicity would have frustrated its effort. I regret, too, that it was unable to do so, and I hope that the principles laid down in this code will be followed by other firms which may find themselves in a similar position, because they are a fundamental basis for good industrial relations.
I am glad to learn, however, that the company is discussing with the unions the phased rundown of the factory, which is due for closure by early 1974. I believe that, when it first announced the closure in January, the company said that supplementary payments over and above those due under the Redundancy Payments Act would be made to employees affected. It has now offered substantial improvements on the supplementary payments originally envisaged, and these are under discussion with the workers.
The company also says that it is prepared to discuss alternative uses for the site with local councils and other interested parties, and a meeting is to be held on 5th April, under the chairmanship of the Mayor of Ealing.
The Government will do all that they can to alleviate hardship, although I do not think that hardship will be as widespread in the area as some people have suggested. There are currently, in March,

60,644 unfilled vacancies in the Greater London area, including West Middlesex, compared with 67,277 registered unemployed.

Mr. Molloy: I cannot allow the Minister to make this reference to the company not adhering to the code of industrial relations practice because it might have frustrated its efforts. What about the frustration of those who cannot get work and their families? What if a union said, "We cannot give notice of a strike because it might frustrate our endeavours."?

Mr. Grant: I have said that I regret that the code was not followed.
I was about to say that the West Middlesex figures are even more dramatic. The number of unemployed in March was 5,409, and unfilled vacancies numbered 8,276, so the area is enjoying the same downward trend in unemployment that is shown nationally. I believe that this will continue and that the vacancies are only the tip of the iceberg. One sees evidence of this in the local papers which circulate in the area. In the Middlesex County Times this week there were 10 pages of advertisements for situations vacant, the Middlesex Advertiser had 10 pages, the Middlesex Chronicle 11 pages, and the Harrow Observer 13 pages. These were not for the sort of menial jobs to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
If, in the exception, some workers find themselves unfitted for work in their immediate vacinity—and I accept that this is sometimes a difficulty—they will have the opportunity of training for fresh skills, currently in demand, at Government training centres at Perivale and Twickenham, which together have more than 500 places. It is worth noting that of the 3,000 additional places planned for the whole country, more than 500 will be in London alone, which, in the circumstances, I do not think is a bad allocation. About 450 places are currently filled, but another 300 places will be made available at these centres during the next few months, and there will be a general expansion of training under the special Training Opportunity Scheme.
I understand that engineering places at the centres are fairly easily available and that under the scheme training facilities are available at employers' establishments and colleges of further education in a
 


wide variety of subjects at all levels, from the semi-skilled right up to managerial level. These include training in the technical, clerical and commercial fields, and the centres are within reasonable travelling distance of Greenford. This is very important. The Training Opportunity Scheme is aimed at preparing individuals— including those made redundant—for new employment, and the Department of Employment is ready to discuss personal problems at its local offices.
It is sometimes suggested that hardship is caused through the replacement of manufacturing firms by others in the service industries. As at October, 1972, the latest date for which details are available in the GLC area, the hourly rate of earnings of manual workers aged 21 and over in all categories of industries was 83·35p—the highest in the country with the exception of the West Midlands. I do not believe that London is badly placed in that respect.
The local offices of the Department of Employment stand ready with their full range of services, including a computer-

ised "job bank", to assist all those who may be looking for jobs to secure suitable work. Both in West London and in the wider travel-to-work area the number and range of vacancies, including skilled jobs have never been greater. This represents a uniquely favourable situation, in contrast to most other parts of the country.
This is not a complacent answer. This is a thoroughly realistic reply from a Minister who, if I may say so, has constituency interests in this area, who understands only too well the problems of the hon. Gentleman's constituents, but who is also able to see the overall picture throughout the country. In that context I must tell the hon. Gentleman and his constituents that here is now probably a better opportunity for them—albeit they will have to change—than ever before.

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Tuesday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-three minutes past Twelve o'clock.